Pension to Second Wife

Source: Himachal Pradesh High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Sandeep Sharma has held that ruled that a retired government employee’s second wife cannot be denied pension benefits, despite the marriage being technically invalid under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA). The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Shriramabai v. Captain Record Officer, emphasizing long cohabitation as a presumption of valid marriage. 

• The Himachal Pradesh High Court held this in the matter of Mahesh Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others (2025).

What was the Background of Mahesh Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others (2025) Case ? 

• Mahesh Ram was appointed as Carpenter/Foreman on regular basis with the government department in 1973. 
• He married Ms. Kamlesh Devi, daughter of Mr. Ghoundlu Ram, in 1994. 
• No child was born from their marriage, leading Ms. Kamlesh Devi and her parents to insist that he marry again. 
• During the subsistence of his first marriage, he solemnised a second marriage with Ms. Jawala Devi, who was the younger sister of his first wife, according to Hindu rites and customs. 
• The petitioner retired in 2003 and began drawing pension under PPO No.62182/HP. 
• Ms. Kamlesh Devi's name was recorded as nominee in his pension records. 
• His first wife Ms. Kamlesh Devi died on 20th April 2020. 
• He filed a representation on 31st January 2021 requesting change of nominee from Ms. Kamlesh Devi to Ms. Jawala Devi. 
• He made another representation/reminder on 29th April 2021 for the same purpose. 
• The department rejected his request stating that the second wife was not eligible for family pension. 
• The petitioner approached the High Court seeking to quash the rejection order and direct authorities to enter his second wife's name in pension records. 
• The department argued that the second marriage was illegal under Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 
• They relied on Rule 54 of CCS Pension Rules, 1972, which bars second wives from pension benefits if married during subsistence of first marriage.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Court acknowledged that under Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the petitioner's marriage with Ms. Jawala Devi during subsistence of his first marriage could be considered illegal, but noted the peculiar facts and circumstances warranted different consideration. 
• The Court relied on the Supreme Court's precedent in Shiramabai v. Captain Record Officer (2023), observing that continuous cohabitation for a long period creates presumption of valid marriage and places heavy burden on those seeking to disprove the legal relationship. 
• The Court found that since there was no dispute about the marriage between petitioner and Ms. Jawala Devi, and they had cohabited since 1994, the objection regarding second marriage during subsistence of earlier marriage should be overruled. 
• The Court observed that all legal representatives of the petitioner had become major with no objection to the nominee change, and recognised Ms. Jawala Devi as the legally wedded wife, determining no prejudice would be caused to either party. 
• The Court noted there was no one else except the petitioner who would claim family pension in the event of his demise, making this an exceptional circumstance. 
• The Court cited supportive precedents including Kusum Lata v. State of H.P. (2024) and Radha Devi v. Chief General Manager (2022), where similar relief was granted to second wives in comparable circumstances. 
• The Court concluded that despite rules prohibiting second marriage during subsistence of earlier marriage, the peculiar circumstances of long cohabitation, absence of competing claimants, and family consent justified allowing the petition. 
• The Court directed entry of Ms. Jawala Devi's name in service records replacing Ms. Kamlesh Devi and ordered authorities to complete the process expeditiously within two months while quashing the rejection order. 

What are the Legal Provisions Referred?

• Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: 
  • A marriage may be solemnized between any two Hindus, if the following conditions are fulfilled: 
  • (i) neither party has a spouse living at the time of the marriage 
  • (ii) at the time of the marriage, neither party is incapable of giving a valid consent due to unsoundness of mind, mental disorder, or fits of insanity 
  • (iii) the bridegroom has completed the age of twenty-one years and the bride, the age of eighteen years 
  • (iv) the parties are not within the degrees of prohibited relationship 
  • (v) the parties are not sapindas of each other 
• Rule 54 of the Central Civil Services (CCS) Pension Rules, 1972: 
  • Where a Government servant contracts another marriage during the lifetime of his or her spouse, the pension and gratuity earned by such Government servant shall be forfeited 
  • However, the authorities may, by order, restore the whole or part of the pension and gratuity so forfeited 
  • No family pension shall be payable to a wife or husband whose marriage with the Government servant was contracted during the lifetime of a previous wife or husband 
• Article 142 of the Constitution of India: 
  • (1) The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it 
  • (2) Subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or any rules made under Article 145, the Supreme Court shall have power to make any order for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person, the discovery or production of any documents, or the investigation or punishment of any contempt of itself 

Cases Referred  

• Shiramabai and Others v. The Captain Record Officer and Another (2023) - The Supreme Court established that continuous cohabitation for a long spell creates a presumption in favour of valid marriage, though this presumption is rebuttable with heavy burden on those seeking to disprove the relationship. 
• Kusum Lata v. State of H.P. and Others (2024) - A coordinate bench of the same High Court granted family pension to a second wife who had married during subsistence of the employee's first marriage, where no other successor claimed pension rights. 
• Radha Devi v. Chief General Manager and Others, Special Leave Petition (2022) - The Supreme Court exercised powers under Article 142 to direct payment of family pension to a second wife who had married during subsistence of first marriage, recognising her spousal status due to long cohabitation.