[ad_1]
NEW DELHI: Although the Supreme Court docket has held in a number of pronouncements that bigamy is a critical offense and {that a} second marriage is unlawful when the primary marriage is subsisting, it has nonetheless allowed a second spouse to obtain pension advantages, even supposing she married whereas the person’s first spouse was nonetheless alive.
A bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Sanjay Kumar and R Mahadevan invoked its particular powers underneath Article 142 of the Structure to grant aid to a lady who approached the court docket after being denied a pension following the dying of her husband, who labored for South Japanese Coalfields Ltd.She needed to combat a authorized battle for practically 23 years, as her husband handed away in 2001.
The bench famous in its order that her place as a ‘partner’ was not disputed, besides on the grounds that she married the person in the course of the subsistence of his first marriage, and all three had been dwelling collectively. Observing that the information of the case had been very peculiar, the court docket invoked its extraordinary energy to do full justice and got here to her rescue.
“We might, in these circumstances, having regard to the peculiar information of the case and with the intention to do full justice, observe that Jay Narayan Maharaj and Radha Devi had lived and cared for one another, put up the dying of Ram Sawari Devi (first spouse ) on April 20, 1984. Radha Devi on the previous age shouldn’t be denied the ‘standing of partner’, which entitles her to obtain household pension. This might assist her dwell with dignity and assist her financially. In view of the aforesaid place, we train our energy underneath Article 142 of the Structure and direct that Radha Devi shall be paid household pension with impact from Jan 1, 2010 until right now on or earlier than Dec 31. She is going to obtain a household pension until her dying,” the court docket mentioned.
Jay Narayan Maharaj was working with the South Japanese Coalfields Ltd and he retired from service in 1983. His first spouse died in 1984 and he died in 2001 after which his second spouse filed an utility for pension which was rejected by the corporate and the HC additionally refused to grant her aid.
A bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Sanjay Kumar and R Mahadevan invoked its particular powers underneath Article 142 of the Structure to grant aid to a lady who approached the court docket after being denied a pension following the dying of her husband, who labored for South Japanese Coalfields Ltd.She needed to combat a authorized battle for practically 23 years, as her husband handed away in 2001.
The bench famous in its order that her place as a ‘partner’ was not disputed, besides on the grounds that she married the person in the course of the subsistence of his first marriage, and all three had been dwelling collectively. Observing that the information of the case had been very peculiar, the court docket invoked its extraordinary energy to do full justice and got here to her rescue.
“We might, in these circumstances, having regard to the peculiar information of the case and with the intention to do full justice, observe that Jay Narayan Maharaj and Radha Devi had lived and cared for one another, put up the dying of Ram Sawari Devi (first spouse ) on April 20, 1984. Radha Devi on the previous age shouldn’t be denied the ‘standing of partner’, which entitles her to obtain household pension. This might assist her dwell with dignity and assist her financially. In view of the aforesaid place, we train our energy underneath Article 142 of the Structure and direct that Radha Devi shall be paid household pension with impact from Jan 1, 2010 until right now on or earlier than Dec 31. She is going to obtain a household pension until her dying,” the court docket mentioned.
Jay Narayan Maharaj was working with the South Japanese Coalfields Ltd and he retired from service in 1983. His first spouse died in 1984 and he died in 2001 after which his second spouse filed an utility for pension which was rejected by the corporate and the HC additionally refused to grant her aid.
[ad_2]
Source link
This Submit could comprise copywrite
