The Orissa High Court has issued an important ruling on family pensions. The court stated that a second marriage entered into while the first wife is alive is not valid, even if the first wife ...read more

The Orissa High Court has issued an important ruling regarding family pensions. The court ruled that if a Hindu employee marries a second time while his first wife is alive, that marriage will not be recognized. The court stated that even after the death of the first wife, the marriage will not be considered valid, and in such cases, a woman who remarries after the death of a government employee is not entitled to receive a pension.

Kanak Lata Dwivedi, the second wife of a deceased government employee, filed a petition in the High Court challenging the government directive regarding pension. Hearing the case, the court held that a second wife is not legally classified as a widow and is therefore not entitled to a pension.

The arguments presented by the woman in the court indicated that since the word 'wives' was mentioned in the rules, she was entitled to pension, but the High Court clearly stated that valid marriage was a mandatory condition for pension.

While considering key aspects of the case, the court stated that a second wife is not legally considered a widow. Such a marriage is punishable under the Hindu Marriage Act. Rejecting the applicant's petition, the court stated that granting a pension based on an illegal marriage would be tantamount to promoting a socially erroneous practice. A division bench comprising High Court judges Justice Dixit Krishna Sripad and Justice Chittaranjan Dash delivered this ruling.

The pension dispute began when a woman, Kanak Lata Dwivedi, approached the High Court challenging the rejection of her claim for family pension by the Controller of Accounts on the grounds that she was the second wife of a deceased employee, who was married while the man was still married.

Although his first wife, Indumati Dwivedi, also died later, officials at the Controller of Accounts Department said the second marriage violated the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, making her ineligible for pension benefits.

During the hearing of the case, the petitioner had argued that the word wife or wives has been used in the pension rules and hence they should be recognised.

The petitioner argued his case, particularly after the death of his first wife, and cited a recent Supreme Court decision to support his claim. However, the Court emphasized that monogamy is the only legal requirement under the Hindu Marriage Act, which came into effect in 1975. Rejecting his argument, the Court warned that accepting his argument would be extremely dangerous for society.

PC:Jagran