The Court of Appeal has ruled that pension authorities cannot assume the jurisdiction of a competent court to declare a registered marriage invalid, and has ordered the Department of Pensions to recognise a retired municipal employee’s wife as eligible for benefits under the Widows’ and Orphans’ Pension Fund Ordinance.
A two-judge bench of Justices Adithya Patabendige and Sasi Mahendran held that although the employee’s first marriage was still legally subsisting when he contracted his second, the subsequent dissolution of the first marriage had to be taken into account in determining pension entitlement, the Daily Mirror reported at 11.09 a.m.
Delivering the judgment, Justice Patabendige emphasised that the authority to determine pension entitlement does not carry with it jurisdiction to determine the validity of a marriage under general matrimonial law.
The court issued a writ of certiorari quashing the Director of Pensions’ decision to refuse recognition on the ground that the marriage was invalid, and a writ of mandamus directing the pension authorities to recognise the wife’s entitlement and take the consequential steps required by law.
The three and a half months at the centre of the case
The petitioner, a retired Machine Minder of the Colombo Municipal Council, had married before, and brought divorce proceedings in the District Court of Gampaha on the ground of malicious desertion.
- 5 July 2000 — the District Court entered judgment in his favour, directing that the decree nisi be made absolute on payment of Rs. 50,000 as permanent alimony.
- 2 April 2001 — he completed the payment.
- 12 May 2001 — he contracted his second marriage.
- 24 August 2001 — the decree nisi was made absolute.
So he remarried after satisfying the condition the court had attached to his divorce, but three and a half months before the decree was formally perfected. On the authorities’ reading, that meant the first marriage was still subsisting and the second was therefore invalid.
Following his retirement on 25 December 2021, a dispute arose over his wife’s entitlement, and the pension authorities refused to recognise her on exactly that basis.
What the ruling turns on
The court did not hold that the first marriage had ended before May 2001. It accepted that it was still legally subsisting at that point. The ruling turns instead on two separate propositions: that the first marriage’s later dissolution must be considered in deciding pension entitlement, and that a pension authority has no power to pronounce a registered marriage invalid in the first place — that is a matter for a court of competent jurisdiction.
The practical effect is that officials administering the Widows’ and Orphans’ fund cannot resolve a contested question of matrimonial status as a preliminary step to deciding a benefits claim.
The petitioner was represented by Attorney-at-Law Nilanga Perera, instructed by Neminda G. Kariyawasam. Deputy Solicitor General Zuri Zain appeared for the respondents.
Not reported
The filing does not give the case number, the date of the judgment, or the names of the petitioner and his wife. It does not say when the pension authorities made the decision that was quashed, how long the dispute ran before the writ application was filed, or how many years of benefits are affected. It does not say whether the respondents may appeal to the Supreme Court.
It also does not indicate how many other claims may be affected. A ruling that pension officials lack jurisdiction to decide marriage validity would, on its face, reach beyond this petitioner — but nothing in the filing says whether the Department of Pensions has decided other claims on the same reasoning, and no departmental response is carried.
Single source. This desk checked the Hiru News homepage rail and the NewsFirst homepage listing; neither had filed on the judgment at the time of writing. Court of Appeal writ judgments are reported unevenly, and Ada Derana has returned an HTTP 403 to this desk for some 48 consecutive days and could not be consulted.