Experts divided over HC verdict on pension rights to second wife

Legal experts term it a 'progressive' order which may open Pandora's box

Legal experts have termed the Gujarat High Court’s recent order, directing the state government to pay equal pensions to both the wives of a deceased employee, as a “progressive and inclusive” verdict while cautioning that it may open the floodgates for several such future disputes involving multiple claimants.

 

The experts also said that the judgement gave legal sanctity to the second marriage which is considered void under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

 

The court directive came in response to a writ petition filed by the first wife, who sought her share after discovering that the entire pension amount was being disbursed solely to the second wife. The deceased employee had married for the second time before retiring from his service.

 

The court noted that under the Gujarat Civil Services Pension Rules, the term ‘family’ includes a wife, as well as legally separated wives and husbands.

 

The high court ruled that, according to the Gujarat Civil Services Pension Rules, 2002, if there is more than one wife (widow), the family pension must be equally divided. The rules do not specify whether only the first or second wife is entitled to receive the pension.

  Explaining the judgment, Kunal Veer Chopra, associate at SKV Law Offices, said, “This ruling is not one of its kind. In fact, various High Courts have time and again addressed similar disputes in recent years. For instance, the Karnataka High Court ruled in favour of equal pension distribution under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, acknowledging the right of multiple widows to share pension benefits when both marriages are legally recognised under service regulations. Conversely, in cases where the second marriage is considered void, such as when the first marriage has not been legally dissolved, the courts, including the Bombay High Court, have consistently denied pension rights to the second wife, citing the archaic (but still prevalent) provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act.”

 

Fazl Askari, associate at PSL Advocates and Solicitors (a law firm), called the verdict progressive.

 

“The court interpreted the rule in a progressive and inclusive manner, it rightly emphasised the statutory definition of ‘family’ to include all legally wedded wives, regardless of nomination or personal preference, and mandates equal distribution. This decision not only ensures fairness in pensionary benefits but also curbs arbitrary exclusion, offering a valuable precedent for similarly situated claimants.”

 

Alay Razvi, managing partner at Accord Juris added, “Government departments and pension authorities are obligated to follow the pension rules without subjective interpretations or delay in compliance may amount to court intervention. But due to this order, it has opened a Pandora’s box for future disputes involving multiple claimants to pension benefits.”

 

The high court has not accepted the request for recovery of the pension amount already paid to the second wife. The court has disposed of the petition, granting the petitioner wife the liberty to seek other legal remedies in the matter, if she so desires.

 

“This judgment has significant implications, as it appears to confer legal recognition on a second marriage that would ordinarily be void under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Under Hindu law, monogamy is not only the ideal but a statutory requirement; therefore, any subsequent marriage while the first spouse is alive is considered void and legally unenforceable. Judicial acknowledgment of such relationships, particularly in the context of pension benefits, may inadvertently encourage government employees to enter into second marriages, which are prohibited under the law,” said Aslam Ahmed, Partner, Singhania & Co.

 

“Traditionally, the Supreme Court and various High Courts have consistently held that pension benefits are to be granted only to the legally wedded spouse. In cases where the second marriage is invalid, the second wife is generally deemed ineligible to receive such benefits. Against this legal backdrop, the status of partners in live-in relationships also becomes a point of interest. Under Indian law, long-term cohabitation between a man and a woman gives rise to a presumption of marriage, which can carry legal implications similar to those of a valid marital union,” Ahmed said.