-
by sayum
18 February 2026 10:41 AM
Legal Wife Entitled to Pension, Second Wife’s Children Get Provident Fund and Gratuity Based on Valid Will. In a significant judgment reconciling conflicting personal and testamentary claims over government service benefits, the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed two cross-appeals, upholding a 1998 trial court decision that awarded family pension to the first legally wedded wife, while confirming the validity of a Will that bequeathed the provident fund, gratuity, and group insurance to the second wife and her children.
Justice Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao, delivering the common judgment, held that the marriage between the deceased teacher and his first wife was never dissolved, thereby entitling her to the statutory family pension. However, since the deceased had executed a duly proved Will bequeathing the rest of the benefits to his second wife and her sons, the Court found no reason to disturb the trial court's nuanced decree.
“First marriage was not dissolved — legal status of wife remains intact”
The plaintiff, Satyavathi, the first wife of deceased teacher Remani Venkata Sitarama Sastry, filed the original suit (O.S. No. 11/1991) seeking full entitlement to all retirement benefits, including provident fund, gratuity, family pension, and insurance. She claimed that the deceased never divorced her, and any claim by another woman styling herself as his widow was illegal and bigamous.
The Court noted: “Admittedly, there is no evidence on record to show that the marriage between plaintiff and Remani Sitarama Sastry was dissolved by a Court of law.”
This confirmed her status as legally wedded wife, entitling her to family pension under the applicable pension rules.
“Will was validly executed in sound mind — propounders discharged burden of proof”
The contesting defendants (second wife Krishnaveni and her children) relied on Ex.B.21, an unregistered Will dated 14.08.1988, by which Sastry bequeathed all benefits (except pension) to them.
Justice Gopala Krishna Rao meticulously analyzed the evidence: “The attesting witnesses D.W.4 and D.W.5 deposed consistently… The Will was signed in their presence… No suspicious circumstances emerged… and even the plaintiff admitted her husband had executed a Will.”
Relying on Lalitaben Jayantilal Popat v. Pragnaben Kataria [(2008) 15 SCC 365], the Court held: “Execution of a Will must not only comply with the statutory requirements but also appear free of suspicious circumstances — which has been done here.”
“Nomination and Will validated — second wife received benefits lawfully”
The Court noted that Krishnaveni was nominated by the deceased to receive his group insurance and provident fund, and the relevant authorities paid her after verifying a legal heir certificate.
Though the plaintiff argued that she was not consulted or informed, the Court found:
“She did not inform the authorities about her status or submit a claim at the time of Sastry’s death… She even admitted she didn’t attend his obsequies or challenge the Will until years later.”
“No equities in plaintiff’s favor due to estrangement, inaction and delay”
While acknowledging that the plaintiff remained the legal wife, the Court also highlighted her absence from the deceased’s life, failure to act promptly after his death, and overall lack of engagement with his affairs:
“The plaintiff herself admitted to not knowing of her husband's death for ten days, did not attend the last rites, and failed to notify the authorities of her claim.”
Final Verdict: Both Appeals Dismissed, Trial Court Judgment Affirmed
The High Court upheld the trial court’s decree dated 16.03.1998, which granted:
• Family pension to the plaintiff (legal wife)
• Provident fund, gratuity, and insurance benefits to Krishnaveni and her children, under the valid Will
“The decree and judgment passed by the learned trial Judge is sustainable under law and there is no need to interfere.”
Both appeals were dismissed and parties directed to bear their own costs.
Date of Decision: 21 April 2025
