RAMESHW ARI DEVI versus STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [2000] 1 S.C.R. 390 · Decided: 27-01-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. WADHWA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAMESHW ARI DEVI 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR 
JANLARY 27, 2000 
B 
(D.P. WADHWA AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.j 
Service Law: 
Pension-Family pension and death cum retirement gratllity-Deceased 
C employee married twice-Entitlement of second widow and her 
sons-Detailed inquiry by State Government-Second Marriage presumed on 
basis of cohabitation-Single Judge held, first widow, her son and sons of the 
second widow only, entitled to equal share till they attain rnajority--{!pheld 
by Division Bench--On appeal Held, disbursement of pension cannot wait 
till civil court pronounces upon the respective rights of the parties-Second 
D marriage void but children legi.timate-No error in judgement of the Division 
Bench-Hindu Marriage Act, 1955-Sections 5( 1) and 16--Hindu Succession 
Ac~ 1956. 
Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964-Rule 21-Bihar Govem-
E ment Servant's Conduct Rules, 1976-Rule 23-Restriction over second mar-
riage-Proceedings before court of law-Held, State Government not debarred 
from conducting separate inquiry to ascertain beneficiaries-Detailed inquiry 
cannot be tenned sham. 
The Appellunt is the first mdow of the deceased employee having one 
F son. The second ltidow has four sons and claimed to have resided with the 
deceased as his wife for a long period. The State Government conducted 
an inquiry which proved the said cohabitation. Single Judge held that the 
appellant and her son alongmth children out of the second marriage, till 
they attain majority, were entitled to share the family pension and death 
G cum retirement b'l'lltuity. The appellant filed L.P .A. which was dismissed. 
Hence this appeal. 
The appellant contended before this Court that the State Govern-
ment had no la\,ful authority to condl!ct an inquiry; that such inquiry 
could be made if charges of misconduct were levelled during the lifetime 
H of the decease; 1:1nd that the second marriage has to be established in a 
390 
-~-
.. 
RAMESHW ARI DEVI v. STA TE 
391 
court of law. 
The respondent, second widow, contended that she had been con-
tinuously staying with the deceased as his wife, raising a presumption of 
a valid marriage; and that the inquiry had confirmed this continuous 
cohabitation. 
Dismissing this appeal, this Court 
HELD 1.1. When there are two claimants to the pensionary benefits 
and there is no nomination, wherever required State Government has to 
hold an inquiry to find out the rightful claimant. Disbursement of pension 
cannot wait till a civil court pronounces upon the respective rights of the 
parties. Doors of civil courts are always open to any party after and even 
before a decision is reached as to who is entitled to pensionary benefits. 
(399-B] 
A 
B 
c 
1.2. Inquiry conducted by the State Government cannot be a sham D 
affair and it could also not be arbitrary as a decision has to be taken in a 
bona fide, reasonable and rational manner. The inquiry which was held 
cannot be termed as sham. The result of the inquiry raised a presumption 
that the second marriage was in accordance with Hindu rites and all 
ceremonies connected with a valid Hindu Marriage \";'l!re performed, and 
tlie presumption was not rebutted. However, this does not make the second E 
marriage legal. (399-C-D] 
Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation & Ors., (1978) 3 SCC 
527; State of Kamataka and Another v. T. Venkataramanappa, (1996)6 SCC 
455 and State of W.B. and Ors. v. Prasenjit Dutta, (1994] 2 SCC 37, relied p 
on. 
2.1. No civil court has pronounced if there was a second marriage in 
accordance with Hindu rites, but this would not debar the State Govern-
ment from malting an inquiry about the existence of such a marriage ond 
act on thot in order to grant pensionary and other benefits. (400-D] 
G 
2.2. The inquiry was quite detailed and two witnesses testified to the 
second marriage having witnessed the same. During the course of the 
inquiry it was also testified that they both were living as husband - wife 
and four sons were born to them. [400-F] 
H 
A 
392 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2000) 1 S.C.R. 
3. The second marriage was in contravention of Section 5 (1) of the 
Hindu Marriage Act and was a void marriage, but under Section 16 of this 
Act the children are considered legitimate. lJnder the Hindu Succession 
Act, 1956, when u Hindu male dies intestate, property devolves firstly on 
heirs in clause (1) which includes widow and son, who all get shares. The 
B second widow cannot be described as widow of the deceased as

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.