BY- SRIJAN KAPIL
REASONING BEHIND THE JUDGEMENT
The Court noted at the beginning that it isn’t in dispute that on the date of marriage between the candidate and Late Sahabuddin Ahmed was enrolled under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, he had a spouse living, being respondent no.6. There is no archive showing that the earlier marriage of the spouse of the applicant with respondent no.6 had been dissolved. While making a reference to Rule 143 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, the Court believed that the Note of the said decides to give that the annuity would be payable to the oldest enduring widow. On her demise, it is payable to the following enduring widow, assuming any.
The Court additionally saw that Rule 26(1) of the said 1965 Rules doesn’t make any differentiation among the Govt. representatives based on close to home law administering them. As such, the said rule restricts polygamy. Subsequently, apparently albeit under the Muslim individual law, the expired spouse of the applicant being a Mohammedan was directed by the Muslim individual law to get a subsequent marriage, the arrangements of Rule 26(1) of the 1965 Rules put a limitation that no Govt. worker, who has a spouse living will get a second marriage without first getting the consent of the Govt. From the pleadings made in the writ appeal, there is no assertion with that impact that the subsequent marriage was shrunk by the expired spouse of the solicitor by acquiring earlier authorization from the capable authority of the Govt.
Under the standards of Mohammedan law, the marriage of a Muslim man with a symbol admirer is neither legitimate nor void marriage yet is only a sporadic marriage. In the current case close by, it is seen that the applicant was not hitched according to standard Mohammedan law yet she was hitched under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 and that the arrangements of Section 4(a) of the said Act render the marriage as void. Additionally, the solicitor is as yet utilizing her Hindu name and there isn’t anything on record to show that the candidate had acknowledged the religion of Islam as her confidence. Area 4 of the Special Marriage Act doesn’t save a subsequent marriage shrunk by a Mohammedan male. From the words “and may, on an appeal introduced by either party thereto against the other party, being so pronounced” it is seen that the said words were subbed by the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 and the said part of the arrangements of area 24 obviously clarifies that it would just be accessible to involved with the union with have a request introduced for proclaiming the union with be a nullity. The way that the marriage is void, is separated out from the arrangements of area 4(a) of the said Act, which gives that neither one of the gatherings has a life partner living. In the current case close by, the solicitor, who is a Hindu had hitched her perished spouse, who was a Mohammedan, under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, and at the hour of such marriage, the condition point of reference of Section 4(a) of the Special Marriage Act was prominently missing. Consequently, the marriage would be void.
Taking into account the arrangements of Rules 143, 136, and 137 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 read with Rule 26(1) of the Assam Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965, the case of the candidate for annuity and other pensionary benefits isn’t discovered practical and the writ request stands excused to the extent that her case is concerned. Notwithstanding, under the law, the minor child of the applicant would in any case be qualified for a lot of the annuity and other pensionary benefits.
Respondent no.5 is directed to pass appropriate orders so that the Treasury Officer concerned would be able to separately disburse the share of the pension to PriyankuParash, son of the petitioner and Late Sahabuddin Ahmed. Accordingly, it would be open to the petitioner to open a bank account in the name of the minor son and the petitioner may record her name as mother and natural guardian of her son PriyankuParash.