Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 4606 (MAD)

Valliammal v. The District Forest Officer

2010-10-19

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

body2010
Judgment :- 1. The petitioner got married to one Thiru.Thangamuthu, who was employed as Forester in the Forest Department. The marriage took place in the year 1971. However, the marriage failed and she was deserted by her husband in the year 1975. The petitioner approached the Judicial Magistrate, Erode and claimed maintenance. The Judicial Magistrate, Erode ordered the maintenance at the rate of Rs.100/- per month. It is stated that Thiru.Thangamuthu took up the matter to this Court and the amount was reduced to Rs.75/- per month. 2. Thereafter, the petitioner filed M.C.No.4 of 1990 before the Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani seeking enhancement of maintenance to Rs.500/-. The Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani passed an order dated 15.07.1992 granting Rs.250/- as maintenance. Thiru.Thangamuthu retired from service in the year 1982. The same was taken note of by the Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani. Thiru.Thangamuthu continued to pay maintenance until he died on 07.12.1996. Thiru.Thangamuthu was paid pension from 1982 till his death. After the death of Thiru.Thangamuthu, the first respondent forwarded the proposals for payment of family pension to the second respondent. However, the second respondent passed an order dated 09.07.1999 returning the proposals for family pension to the petitioner and directing the first respondent to produce the following documents to sanction family pension:- i) Death Certificate of 1st wife of Thiru.Thangamuthu ii) Proof of marriage of petitioner with the deceased Government servant. iii) The reason for not declaring the petitioner as 2nd legally wedded wife of Thiru.Thangamuthu. 3. The petitioner wrote a letter dated 18.08.1999 stating that the death of first wife in the year 1970 was not registered and hence it was not possible to get the Death Certificate of the first wife. The petitioner stated that her marriage with the deceased Government servant was not registered. The petitioner stated that however, the marriage of the petitioner with the deceased Government servant was not in dispute, as the Government servant himself did not dispute the marriage and the petitioner enclosed the order dated 15.07.1992 in M.C.No.4 of 1990 of the Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani, in this regard. She further stated that she was not aware as to why her name was not nominated by Thiru.Thangamuthu. 4. Thereafter, the first respondent passed an order dated 26.08.1999, in terms of the order dated 09.07.1999 of the second respondent, directing the petitioner to comply with the order dated 09.07.1999 of the second respondent. 5. She further stated that she was not aware as to why her name was not nominated by Thiru.Thangamuthu. 4. Thereafter, the first respondent passed an order dated 26.08.1999, in terms of the order dated 09.07.1999 of the second respondent, directing the petitioner to comply with the order dated 09.07.1999 of the second respondent. 5. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the Original Application in O.A.No.7807 of 1999 (W.P.No.39107 of 2006) to quash the order dated 09.07.1999 of the second respondent and the order dated 26.08.1999 of the first respondent and for a direction to the respondents to pay family pension from 07.12.1996. 6. Heard Mr.K.Jaya Ganesh, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr.S.N.Kirubanandam, learned Special Government Pleader (Forests) for the first respondent and Mr.V.Vijayashankar, learned counsel for the second respondent. 7. The petitioner got married with Thiru.Thangamuthu, Forester employed by the first respondent. The marriage took place in the year 1971. I have perused the judgment dated 15.07.1992 of the Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani in M.C.No.4 of 1999. The said judgment, makes it clear that the marriage was not disputed. The deceased Government servant pleaded before the Magistrate Court that he was retired from service in 1982 and he was in receipt of pension and there was no reason to enhance the maintenance. Hence, as correctly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the marriage proof of petitioner with the deceased Government servant is the judicial order dated 15.07.1992 in M.C.No.4 of 1999 itself. 8. Since the marriage got broken in a short time and the Government servant deserted the petitioner, the Government servant did not naturally make nomination. Hence, the petitioner could not be asked to give reason for not nominating her as second legally wedded wife of Thiru.Thangamuthu. Then, the only requirement is the production of Death Certificate of first wife. According to the petitioner, as stated above, the first wife of the deceased Government servant died in the year 1970. It is stated that the death was not registered. In any event, it is difficult for petitioner to get Death Certificate as she has no support. She was supported by her elderly father. Now she is aged about 68 years. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is willing to give an Indemnity Bond stating that if it was found that she was not entitled to family pension, she could repay the amount. She was supported by her elderly father. Now she is aged about 68 years. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is willing to give an Indemnity Bond stating that if it was found that she was not entitled to family pension, she could repay the amount. 10. Taking into account the peculiar circumstances of the case and also in the interest of justice, I am of the view that a direction could be issued to the respondents to sanction family pension to the petitioner, after getting necessary Indemnity Bond as suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 11. Accordingly, the first respondent is directed to forward the proposal for family pension payable to petitioner, to the second respondent, within a period of three weeks from today and on receipt of such proposal, the second respondent is directed to pass necessary order, sanctioning family pension to the petitioner, after getting necessary Indemnity Bond from the petitioner, within a period of four weeks thereafter. 12. The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.