LCI Learning
New LIVE Course: Toxicology and Law. Batch begins 21st July. Register Now!

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

New Delhi: In a decision that could benefit the second wife of a married man, the Supreme Court on Wednesday held that such women too upon the husband's death are entitled to compassionate appointment in government jobs, as long as the first wife has no objection to it.

 

Under the Hindu Marriage Act, a man can have only one wife during the subsistence of a marriage as wedding for the second time amounts to crime under Section 494 IPC and Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, inviting punishment up to seven years RI.

 

"When the two wives have come to an understanding who are you to oppose it? why should you be bothered, if one wife seeks compassionate appointment and another wants the compensatory benefits," a bench of Justice Markandeya Katju and Justice R.M. Lodha asked, while dismissing a Karnataka government's appeal.

 

Counsel M. Qamaruddin appeared for Lakshmi, the second wife. The apex court rejected the government's argument that under the Hindu Marriage Act, since a man cannot have two wives during the subsistence of the marriage, the so-called second wife cannot claim any right of appointment by merely entering into an agreement with the first wife.

 

"If you are not a party to the agreement how does it matter, the two wives have reached a settlement," the bench observed. The bench passed the order on an appeal filed by the state challenging a direction of the Karnataka High Court to the government to consider the appointment of Lakshmi, second wife of G. Hanumanthe Gowda, a head constable of the Armed Reserve Police.

LCI Learning

 

In this case Hanumantha Gowda had initially married Anusuya, but even during the subsistence of the marriage, he entered into a wedlock with another woman named Lakshmi. He died on October 12, 1988 resulting in a legal battle for the property, pension benefits and also the question of availing compassionate government job as Gowda was in service when he passed away.

 

A trial court ruled in favour of Anusuya, but the second wife challenged the decision in the Karnataka High Court. However, during the pendency of the petition, the two women reached a compromise formula under which it was agreed they would share the property left behind by the deceased in equal proportion including pensions benefits.

 

It was also agreed while Anusuya would take home certain death related compensation money, Lakshmi the second wife would stake claim for a post in the police department on compassionate grounds.

 

The high court granted seal of its approval to the compromise formula by a judgement dated September 25, 2001 and directed the state to consider the appointment of Lakshmi on compassionate grounds within three months.

 

Aggrieved, the state appealed in the apex court which dismissed the same with the said observations.

 - www.palaklotiya.blog.co.in

"Loved reading this piece by Palak Lotiya?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"




  Views  5902  Report



Comments
15 years ago aparna

I think this judgement leaves a good space to all those who aspire to have second spouses. The men can marry once and more, as well as the women shall do the same. Then what about the laws? Well there are many who marry more than once even during the subsistence of the first marriage, but then they fear law and try to hide the second marriage. But now it seems that the people are left to to do whatever they want and yet enjoy it fearlessly. When the second marriage itself is invalid in law, how can the agreement between the two wives be held to be married? I know one judgement of the Bombay High court where the two got a divorce, and the man remarried, but the first wife filed an application for nullifying the divorce, with delay and laches, and the H'ble HC accepted the application, nullified the divorce, and held that this is a one in a million case where the husband now has two wives, legally. But that was an miraculous exception. I think the decision is wrong.


16 years ago sumit singla

There is nothign to be shocked. There are mre shocking things done by politicians who consider themselves above law. It is pathetic that it is the state who decides who is a criminal and who is not. Tahts why no politician is a criminal in the eyes of the law. This is the essence of IPC. This . I think is the thing whi can be calleed. "SHOCKING". Supreme Cpurt deserves full accolades in the present question of second marriage.


16 years ago sumit singla

Its true that mutual agreements cant override stautory law or legal BUT this is followed in the interest of general public or in tune with public policy i.e . for the welfare of public. So, I perfectly agree with MK barua. Laws are meant for public and public is not meant for law. If due to consent of first wife, law does not punish the husband who has married twice it is also a public policy and the same is the case in question.


16 years ago Vijayarajan

This is a surprising observation and interpretation by the court. Can the law of land be altered by a mutual agreement????!!!!!!!!!!!!


16 years ago ganesh

I don't agree with this judgement, how far the agreement is valid, first before entering into the matter? it is a utter magic done blindfolded. An offence marked by IPC is erased??


16 years ago mkbarua

No doubt,if someone marries another woman during subsistence of an existing marriage admittedly it is an offense.But the basis of all legal principle is the welfare of human beings.if such a judgment would have been passed, In spite of first wife's objection, then it could have been a shocking one , because it would have been in direct contravention of the established principles which are made to achieve among many other things also the protection of the interest of the first wife and her children. Now the husband (offender)is no more and has left behind his liabilities to determine the course of their life on their own with or without the resources earned by him for being an employee of the state. In this situation if the first wife in her discretion has shown heart to part a share of that benefit with the second wife thereby providing an other woman a scope to lead a dignified life how the court can be held wrong for respecting the evident human element available in the decision of the first wife and above all the laws and legal principles are set for the human beings not vice versa.


16 years ago DR.SANAT KUMAR DASH

I agree with MRKGANDHI


16 years ago MRKGANDHI

This judgment is shocking and the apex court throwing away not only morals; but also the legal principles. If someone marries another woman during subsistence of an existing marriage admittedly it is an offense. It is unfortunate the apex court rolls out judgments against the principles of law. The government should step in and curb this tendency.




You are not logged in . Please login to post comments.

Click here to Login / Register