Holding that a second marriage contracted during the subsistence of a first marriage would “at best be a void transaction”, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that such a relationship does not confer any right to claim family pension from the state.
Dismissing an appeal seeking family pension on the basis of a claimed second marriage with a deceased government employee, the Division Bench of Justices Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Rohit Kapoor observed that the provisions of the Central Civil Services Rules specifically barred solemnisation of a second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage. “As such, the alleged marriage claimed by the appellant would at best be a void transaction and would not confer any right on the appellant to claim family pension from the state,” the Bench observed.
Explaining the legal position, the court observed that a claimant seeking family pension must first establish that she fell within the definition of a widow. “In order to claim the benefit of family pension, the applicant will have to demonstrate that she would be covered within the definition of ‘widow’, which in ordinary parlance means the ‘wife’ of deceased person. The status of ‘wife’ can be claimed only if there is a valid marriage,” the Bench held.
The court added that the applicable rules did not contemplate a second marriage during the lifetime of a living spouse. “In the facts of the present case, the rules do not contemplate any second marriage during the lifetime of the living spouse and therefore, the claim of second marriage during the subsistence of first marriage, would not enure the status of ‘wife’ to the appellant so as to claim family pension from the state,” the Bench observed.
The Judges, at the same time, clarified that a different position might arise in matters involving claims for maintenance against a husband. “The position may be somewhat distinct in the matter relating to the claim of maintenance against the husband by the woman who contracts second marriage. However, such considerations will not arise where the right is asserted against the state in the context of family pension,” the Bench added.
Holding that the appellant could not claim the status of a “wife” for the purposes of family pension on the basis of the alleged second marriage, the court found no ground to interfere and dismissed the appeal.
The significant takeaway from the judgment is the court’s clear articulation that eligibility for family pension is a statutory right governed by service rules and not merely by a claimed marital relationship. The Bench asserted that where service rules expressly prohibited a second marriage during the lifetime of a spouse, such a relationship could not be relied upon to secure pensionary benefits from the state, irrespective of any other equities that might arise in private disputes such as maintenance.
