Himachal Pradesh High Court: In an intra-court appeal challenging the rejection of a claim for family pension, the Division Bench of G.S. Sandhawalia, CJ., and Bipin Chander Negi*, J., held that although the marriage between the appellant and the deceased employee (deceased) was held to be illegal under Section 5(i), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), it could not be treated as immoral. The Court set aside the impugned judgment and granted the family pension despite void marriage, emphasising social justice and economic empowerment of women.
Also Read: Orissa HC denies Family pension to second wife
Background
The appellant had solemnised marriage with the deceased in 1994, after obtaining a customary divorce from her previous husband, and an affidavit dated 6 May 1994 sworn by the deceased and a copy of the Parivar Register was placed on record to establish the same. The affidavit also stated that the first wife of the deceased had died 1 year prior. The deceased, who worked as a foreman, passed away on 10 January 2020, following which a claim for family pension was submitted by the appellant being the nominee in the pension record, which was rejected by the respondent.
The rejection was based on the fact that the nomination had been withdrawn after superannuation and that while adjudicating a petition under Section 9 HMA filed by the appellant seeking restitution of conjugal rights, it was held that no legal or valid marriage was solemnised between the parties and the appellant had not acquired the status of the deceased’s wife. The civil court had consequently dismissed the petition on the ground of lack of locus standi. The respondent contended that in view of Rule 50(6), Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021 (CCS Pension Rules), family pension could be granted only to a legally wedded spouse, and since the marriage had been declared void in terms of Section 5(i) HMA, the appellant was not entitled to any pensionary benefits.
Analysis
The Court noted that the petition for restitution of conjugal rights was filed on 3 August 2006, meaning thereby that since 6 May 1994 till immediately prior to the filing of the petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights, the appellant and the deceased had cohabited for approximately 12 years. The Court opined that if a man and a woman cohabit as husband and wife for a long duration, then a presumption under Section 114, Evidence Act, 1872, can be drawn to the effect that they were living together because of a valid marriage. The presumption is rebuttable and can be rebutted by leading unimpeachable evidence. The Court also noted that the marriage was already declared a nullity as the appellant’s earlier marriage was subsisting when she got married to the deceased.
The Court referred to Rameshchandra Rampratapji Daga v. Rameshwari Rameshchandra Daga, (2005) 2 SCC 33, wherein it was observed that:
“Keeping in consideration the present state of the statutory Hindu law, a bigamous marriage may be declared illegal being in contravention of the provisions of the Act but it cannot be said to be immoral so as to deny even the right of alimony or maintenance to a spouse financially weak and economically dependent.”
The Court noted that the appellant’s claim was governed by the CCS Pension Rules. The Court opined that when such affirmative actions are taken by the lawmaker, in the form of subordinate legislation, they need to be enforced appropriately by taking into account relevant considerations such as empowerment of women, social justice so that the purpose that is intended is suitably achieved.
The Court noted that the appellant belonged to a marginalised section of society, and hence, it is the Court’s duty to advance the constitutional vision of social justice. The approach to be adopted is one of “social justice adjudication” as opposed to a purely “adversarial approach”. Therefore, the Court’s role is to understand the purpose of law in society and to assist the law in achieving its intended purpose. An interpretation which reduces the subordinate legislation to a futility should be avoided, and a view that the rule-making authority made the rule only for the purpose of bringing about an effective result should be adopted.
The Court referred to Rameshchandra and opined that the object of providing family pension cannot be different from the object of providing maintenance. The Court noted that the long cohabitation between the parties, entry of the appellant’s name in the pension record of the deceased (though subsequently withdrawn), the fact that the two sons and two daughters from deceased’s previous marriage had attained majority and none of them was claiming any right over the family pension, when considered with relevant factors like economic empowerment, social justice and dignity of the individual, required the Court to be sensitive towards the weaker party. Therefore, the Court concluded that the appellant, who was financially weak and economically dependent, would be entitled to pension.
The Court referred to Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal, (1978) 4 SCC 70, wherein it was observed that:
“The brooding presence of the constitutional empathy for the weaker sections like women and children must inform interpretation if it has to have social relevance. So viewed, it is possible to be selective in picking out that interpretation out of two alternatives which advances the cause — the cause of the derelicts.”
Decision
Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgment rejecting the family pension claim, and while allowing the appeal held the appellant entitled to the grant of family pension.
[Umawati v. H.P. SEB, LPA No. 545 of 2025, decided on 25-4-2026]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Bipin Chander Negi
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Inder Singh Chandel and Arun Kumar, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Sunita Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Meenakshi Katoch and Dhananjay Sharma, Advocates.