6 Children Patna High Court Orders Family Pension Second Wife

The Patna High Court has directed state authorities in Bihar to reconsider a widow’s claim for family pension after finding that officials had overlooked a crucial application made by her late husband seeking permission for his second marriage to her, holding that given the couple’s long-standing relationship and six children, she should not be denied the “status of spouse” in her old age.

Justice Purnendu Singh was hearing a plea filed by a woman challenging a February 5, 2019 order of the chief engineer, Flood Control and Water Resources Department, Muzaffarpur, which rejected her claim for family pension following the death of her husband, who was a clerk in the department.

“Having regard to the facts of the present case and in order to do complete justice, I am of the view that the deceased employee and the petitioner had lived and cared for each other, post the death of the first wife and at the old age the petitioner should not be denied the ‘status of spouse’, which entitles her to receive family pension,” the court said on August 25.

The matter originated after the man’s death on April 17, 2009, after the woman who claimed to be his second wife said they had six children, including four daughters. The judgment records that the man’s first wife did not object to his second marriage. The first wife died in December 2009.

The authorities had rejected the woman’s claim on the ground that the man had not obtained permission from the competent authority before entering into the second marriage.

The high court, however, noted that the man had submitted an application on February 28, 1982, seeking permission to solemnise the second marriage. The application was produced before the court, and it found that this material fact had not been considered while the pension claim was rejected.

The court examined Rule 23(2) of the Bihar Government Service Conduct Rules, 1976, which restricts a government servant who has a spouse living from entering into a second marriage, but it permits the government to allow such a marriage if it is satisfied that the marriage is permissible under the applicable personal law and that there are other grounds for allowing it.

The state opposed the petition, arguing that the man had not obtained the required sanction and that the petitioner’s claim had to be considered under the applicable service rules and government resolutions. It also argued that a Hindu man could not solemnise a second marriage during the lifetime of his first wife.

The judgment referred to a Finance Department resolution dated September 6, 1996. The resolution clarified that the second wife of a deceased government employee who had married during the lifetime of his first wife would not be entitled to family pension. However, minor children born from the second marriage would be entitled to family pension under the applicable rules until they attained majority.

The court noted the petitioner’s claim that the first wife was issueless and had raised no objection to the second marriage. It further recorded that the petitioner and the man had lived together as husband and wife and that six children were born from their relationship. Most importantly, the man had applied for permission for the second marriage while he was still in service.

The judge said that rejecting the pension claim solely on the ground that prior permission had not been obtained failed to take into account the application submitted by Sah and the surrounding circumstances. “The non-consideration of this vital information” rendered the February 5, 2019 order unsustainable, the court held, quashing and setting it aside as contrary to Rule 23(2) of the Bihar Government Service Conduct Rules, 1976.

The court directed the chief engineer, Flood Control and Water Resources Department, Muzaffarpur, to pass a fresh order after considering the correct facts, including the man’s application seeking permission for the second marriage and the second wife’s claim for family pension after the death of his first wife. It held that the petitioner was entitled to family pension from April 17, 2009, the date of her husband’s death, until her death.

The judge said he expected the authorities to pass a reasoned order and “ensure to make payment of family pension to the petitioner, in accordance with law.” The writ petition was thus disposed of.

Vineet Upadhyay is an Assistant Editor with The Indian Express (Digital), where he leads specialized coverage of the Indian judicial system. Expertise Specialized Legal Authority: Vineet has spent the better part of his career analyzing the intricacies of the law. His expertise lies in "demystifying" judgments from the Supreme Court of India, various High Courts, and District Courts. His reporting covers a vast spectrum of legal issues, including: Constitutional & Civil Rights: Reporting on landmark rulings regarding privacy, equality, and state accountability. Criminal Justice & Enforcement: Detailed coverage of high-profile cases involving the Enforcement Directorate (ED), NIA, and POCSO matters. Consumer Rights & Environmental Law: Authoritative pieces on medical negligence compensation, environmental protection (such as the "living person" status of rivers), and labor rights. Over a Decade of Professional Experience: Prior to joining The Indian Express, he served as a Principal Correspondent/Legal Reporter for The Times of India and held significant roles at The New Indian Express. His tenure has seen him report from critical legal hubs, including Delhi and Uttarakhand. ... Read More