As long as the marriage subsist, the wife is entitled to receive the PF benefits even if she desserted her husband - Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court held that when the marriage is legally valid, wife is entitled to the Provident Fund and other related benefits of the husband. The HC also said that just because a woman fails to perform the duties of a mother and a wife, she cannot be denied her entitlement.

Bench of Justices Atul Chandurkar and Nitin Suryawanshi have pronounced the ruling by while upholding a family court's orders that wife has entitlement in the PF benefits of her husband though the wife desserted her husband.

The husband had deleted the name of his first wife from all the PF and other related schemes and had nominated his second wife for these benefits. Amid all these disputes, the husband had not given divorce to the first wife and his first marriage subsisted.The bench said that the second marriage was thus illegal since the first marriage continued to subsist even as the couple lived separately from the past 23 years.

Having heard the contentions of both the sides, the judges referred to the provisions of the General Provident Fund (Central Services) Rules, 1960, which notifies as to who is entitled to these benefits. "Taking into consideration the definition of ‘family’ in the rules, only a legally wedded wife can be said to be included in the definition of family."

"Since the husband has performed a second marriage, while his first marriage was subsisting, the second marriage is void and the second wife thus cannot be said to be legally wedded one," the bench held. Further, the bench said that even if the couple leading life separately for more than 23 years, "still that itself does not dissolve."

The husband's contention was that the first wife was leading an adulterous life and has failed to perform the duties of a mother and of a wife and she deserted him over 23 years has forced him to perform a second marriage.

"All these allegations are unacceptable and they do not further the case of the husband in any manner, in absence of declaration and dissolution of his marriage with the first wife by decree of a competent Civil Court," the judges held.

The bench held that "During the subsistence of the first marriage, he has performed a second marriage, which cannot be said to be legal. The allegations of adultery have no relevance in the present case as the same does not in any manner affect the merits of the claim by the first wife,"