The Orissa High Court at Cuttack has rejected the intra-court appeal and upheld the rejection of a family pension claim, observing that a second wife whose marriage is void under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is not entitled to a family pension under the Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992.
The appeal arose from an order dated July 16, 2025, by which a single judge has negated the appellant’s writ petition challenging the decision of the Controller of Accounts, Odisha, rejecting her claim of pension. The appellant claimed a pension as the second wife of a deceased government employee, whose first wife was alive at the time of the second marriage.
The Division Bench of Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad and Justice Chittranjan Dash dismissed the appeal and held that after the enactment of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, amongst the Hindus monogamy is the thumb rule with no exception, and therefore a second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage is void ab initio. The court observed that a valid marriage is a sine qua non to be a widow under the pension rules.
Rejecting the appellant’s argument that the Pension Rules use the expression “wife/wives” and should therefore include a second wife after the demise of the first wife, the Court held that a valid marriage is a sine qua non for entitlement to family pension. The Bench observed that pension rules cannot be interpreted in a manner that defeats the statutory mandate of monogamy under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the penal consequence of bigamy under the Indian Penal Code, 1862. It was also observed that granting a family pension to the second wife amounts to placing a premium on illegality.
The Court categorically held that a marriage which is void ab initio due to bigamy does not become valid upon the subsequent death of the first spouse. Referring to Raj Kumari v. Krishna, 2015 (14) SCC 511, the court held that “the question relating to claim of second wife for the grant of family pension is no longer res integra.”
The Bench also distinguished the Supreme Court’s decision in Smt. Sriramabai v. Record Officer, 2023 INSC 744 relied upon by the appellant, holding that the said case dealt with presumption of marriage arising from prolonged cohabitation after the death of the first spouse and had no application to cases involving admitted bigamy
Accordingly, the court rejected the appeal.
Appearance:
For Appellant- Advocate Madhumita Panda, Advocate J. Bhuyan and Advocate D. Behera
For Respondents – ASC J.K. Khandayatray
