Bigamy Bars Pension Benefits: Madras High Court Rejects Second Wife’s Inclusion In Pension Payment Order

A division bench of the Madras High Court recently set aside a single judge’s order that had permitted the inclusion of a government servant’s second wife in his Pension Payment Order for the purpose of family pension, holding that a second marriage contracted during the lifetime of the first wife is void and cannot confer pensionary benefits.

The division bench comprising Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice C. Kumarappan delivered the judgment in a plea filed by the Accountant General, Tamil Nadu.

The case arose from a writ petition filed by M. Radhakrishnan, a retired Block Development Officer who superannuated on July 31, 2007, and had since been receiving pension. During the lifetime of his first wife, R. Vasantha, he contracted a second marriage with R. Revathy on May 27, 1992.

In April 2009, Radhakrishnan applied to the Block Development Officer seeking inclusion of both wives in his Pension Payment Order so that they could receive family pension after his lifetime. The proposal was forwarded through official channels but was rejected by the Accountant General on July 29, 2009.

After the death of his first wife on August 10, 2020, Radhakrishnan renewed his claim, contending that there was no longer any legal impediment to recognising the second wife for family pension.

The single judge allowed the writ petition, relying on high court's judgment in C.Sarojini Devi vs. The Director of Local Fund Audits (2020) that held courts must lean towards a presumption of marriage.

Challenging this, the Accountant General preferred an intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

The division bench examined the statutory scheme under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, particularly Rule 49 governing family pension and Rule 7 dealing with payment to multiple widows. The bench also referred to the Explanation under the Pension Rules, which provides that a second wife is eligible for family pension only if the marriage was solemnised under customary law before the commencement of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, or under Mohammedan law where bigamy is permissible.

Further, court considered Rule 19 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973, which prohibits a government servant from contracting a second marriage during the lifetime of a spouse, unless permitted under personal law and with government approval.

The bench held that contracting a second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage constitutes bigamy and is both an offence and misconduct under the Conduct Rules. It observed that the death of the first wife would not validate a marriage that was void at its inception.

Relying also on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Raj Kumari v. Krishna (2015) 14 SCC 511, the bench reiterated that pensionary benefits are ordinarily payable only to the legally wedded spouse.

Concluding that the writ court had not properly considered the applicable pension rules, the division bench held that the second wife’s name could not be included in the Pension Payment Order for the purpose of family pension.

The order dated November 2, 2021 was set aside, and the writ appeal was allowed. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

Case Title: The Accountant General, Accounts and Entitlements vs. M.Radhakrishnan and Another

Order Date: January 27, 2026

Bench: Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice C. Kumarappan