Unregistered Nikahnama, Lack Of Marriage Photo Or Service Record Entry Can't Defeat Widow's Pension Claim: Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court has held that denial of family pension on the ground that the marriage was not solemnized as it was not reflected in the employee's service records or supported by photographs is “highly improper and unjust”.
In doing so the court directed the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation to treat the petitioner as the legally wedded wife of the corporation's deceased employee and grant her pensionary benefits.
The court was hearing a petition filed by Farzanabanu Mohammadhanif Shaikh, challenging the Corporation's refusal to grant her family pension following the death of her husband, who had been serving as a permanent employee with the Corporation.
Justice Maulik J. Shelat observed:
“It is unfathomable that in absence of photograph of couple as not produced before the Corporation, it can reach to conclusion that marriage was never solemnized. Likewise, it is highly improper and unjust on part of the Corporation to say that during lifetime, the deceased employee never informed about his second marriage with petitioner and in his service book, no name of the petitioner entered into, than it would assume that petitioner is not the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee.”
The petitioner's case was that she had married the deceased employee on 05.12.2007 after the death of his first wife, and had produced the Nikahnama and affidavit of the Kazi who solemnized the marriage. She contended that despite directions from the High Court in earlier proceedings to reconsider her claim, the Corporation repeatedly rejected her request on grounds such as non-registration of Nikahnama, absence of joint photographs, and lack of nomination in service records.
Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Aakash D. Modi submitted that the Corporation had ignored overwhelming documentary evidence establishing the marriage, including the Nikahnama, affidavit of the Kazi, and crucially, the deceased employee's own written admission in maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, where he acknowledged that the marriage had taken place through Nikah ceremony.
Opposing the petition, advocate H.S. Munshaw for the Corporation submitted that the petitioner had failed to conclusively prove her legal status as wife, particularly since the Nikahnama was not registered and her name did not appear in official service records. Further, the children of the deceased have no knowledge of such a Nikah and the petitioner had never informed the Corporation of the same.
Advocate Sikander Saiyed, appearing for the children of the deceased employee from his first wife who had passed away, contended that there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove the marriage and also alleged suppression of material facts by the petitioner, pointing out that she had received ₹2 lakh under a family settlement and was therefore not entitled to further benefits.
After considering these submissions, the Court noted that there was nothing submitted before the court to show that the Nikah Nama required compulsory registration as per Muslim Law. In absence of any such requirement, the court said that it was not appropriate on the part of the officials of the Corporation to ask the proof of registration of marriage from petitioner.
It emphasized that the deceased employee himself had admitted the marriage in maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, and therefore “when there is a clear admission of factum of marriage with petitioner by the deceased … there is no other evidence ought to have been required by the Corporation, to consider the claim of the petitioner for family pension.”
The Court further noted that a settlement between the deceased children which had no bearing on the petitioner's right to receive family pension.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the orders of the Corporation and directed it to treat the petitioner as the legally wedded wife, prepare her pension papers, and pass appropriate orders to grant her family pension by May 15 with interest in case of delay.
Case Title: Farzanabanu Mohammadhanif Shaikh v Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation & Ors.
Case No: R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21884 of 2019
Appearance:
Mr. Aakash D. Modi for the Petitioner – widow.
Mr. H.S. Munshaw for Respondent No. 1 – Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation;
Mr. Sikander Saiyed for Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 – children.