Second wife not entitled to family pension even after first wife’s death if marriage was void: Delhi High Court

The Court reiterated that the grant of family pension is governed by the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, under which pension is payable only to a legally wedded widow. (AI image)

The Delhi High Court has held that a woman whose marriage was solemnized during the subsistence of her husband’s first marriage is not entitled to family pension under the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, even if the legally wedded first wife subsequently dies.A Division Bench comprising Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora made it clear that a void marriage does not acquire validity upon the death of the first wife, and pensionary benefits remain restricted to a legally wedded spouse.The Court held:“Consequently, the widow who is entitled to a family pension is the ‘wife’ who was lawfully married to the officer.”Rejecting the petitioner’s claim, the Court further clarified:“The second marriage… continued to remain unlawful until his demise in 2011 and therefore the demise of Smt. Satwati Devi in 2012 would not make the petitioner’s marriage valid.”Background of the CaseThe writ petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 27.11.2025 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), Principal Bench, which had rejected her claim for grant of family pension as the widow of late Sepoy Udey Singh.The petitioner’s husband, Late Sepoy Udey Singh, had been enrolled in the Indian Army in 1963 and served for more than 16 years before being discharged in 1979. He was thereafter granted service pension. Post-retirement, he joined the Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration and Research in 1981 and retired from there in 2002, drawing pension from both organizations during his lifetime.The petitioner claimed that she had married the deceased soldier between 1970 and 1980 as per customary rites after migrating from Jammu and Kashmir to Udhampur. She stated that she was unaware at the time of marriage that he already had a legally wedded wife, Smt. Satwati Devi. Three children were born from the relationship.Upon visiting his native village, she found out that he had a first wife and reported the matter to the authorities. During his lifetime, the deceased soldier had attempted to include the petitioner’s name as his next of kin in official records and sought issuance of a Part-II order recognizing the marriage. However, this request was rejected on the ground that the first wife was alive and a second marriage would be void under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.After the death of the soldier on 27.09.2011, the petitioner made several representations seeking family pension. However, her claim was consistently rejected, including through a communication dated 05.03.2013, on the ground that her marriage was void. It was brought to the Courts attention that the first wife, Smt. Satwati Devi, had survived the deceased and had duly claimed family pension in accordance with the applicable regulationsThe petitioner further pointed out that the first wife, Smt. Satwati Devi, died on 13.05.2012, and argued that upon her death, the right to receive family pension should devolve upon her.Petitioner’s ArgumentsThe petitioner argued that the Tribunal had erred in recording that the first wife was alive and receiving pension, despite her demise in 2012.She argued that she had lived with the deceased soldier throughout and that the first wife had been living separately. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Shriramabai v. Record Officer, to argue that pensionary benefits could be extended to a second wife in certain circumstances.Issue Before CourtThe principal issue before the Court was whether a woman whose marriage was void at inception could claim family pension upon the subsequent death of the legally wedded wife.Court’s FindingsThe Court, after considering the record, held that the petitioner’s marriage was void as it had been solemnised during the subsistence of the first marriage and therefore did not confer any legal status as a ‘wife’. The Court reiterated that the grant of family pension is governed by the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, under which pension is payable only to a legally wedded widow.It noted:“It is not in dispute that… family pension is payable to the widow… who was lawfully married to the officer.”The Court emphasized that under Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, a valid marriage requires that neither party has a spouse living at the time of marriage, and Section 11 renders a marriage void if contracted during subsistence of a prior marriage.Rejecting the core argument of the petitioner, the Court held that the death of the first wife does not validate a void marriage.The Court observed that the petitioner’s argument that the right to pension devolved upon her after the first wife’s death was “without any basis in law.” It further held that the deceased soldier had not taken any legal steps to dissolve his first marriage during his lifetime, despite having sufficient opportunity to do so.The Court held that the right to family pension does not devolve upon another person upon the death of the legally wedded widow.Reliance on Supreme Court JudgmentsThe Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Raj Kumari v. Krishan, observing:“Normally, pension is given to the legally wedded wife… By no stretch of imagination one can say that the plaintiff… was the legally wedded wife… especially when he had a wife who was alive when he married another woman.”The Court also rejected reliance on Shriramabai case, holding that the facts were entirely different. It noted that in Shriramabai, the first marriage had been dissolved by divorce, and thereafter long cohabitation gave rise to a presumption of valid marriage.In contrast, the Court noted that in the present case the first marriage of the deceased soldier was never dissolved in accordance with law, and the first wife was still alive at the time of his death. As a result, the second marriage continued to remain void throughout and never acquired legal validity at any stage. On this basis, the Court held that the judgment in Shriramabai had no application to the facts of the present case.Rejection of CCS Rules ArgumentThe Court further noted that the petitioner had placed reliance on an Office Memorandum issued under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021. However, the Court recorded that the said rules were not applicable to the present case, as the grant of family pension was governed by the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961. It was further observed that, in any event, the said memorandum did not confer any right upon a spouse who was not lawfully married to the deceased.It was also clarified that while the children born from the relationship were entitled to family pension, they were no longer eligible as they had attained majority and were married.Final DecisionThe Court held that the decision of the authorities rejecting the petitioner’s claim for family pension was correct and had been rightly upheld by the Tribunal.It concluded:“The present petition is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed.”Case Details

(Vatsal Chandra is a Delhi-based Advocate practicing before the courts of Delhi NCR.)