Family Pension Cannot Be Denied For Karewa Marriage When Widow Continues To Live In The Same Family : Punjab & Haryana High Court

“Karewa Marriage Is Not ‘Remarriage’ For Family Pension”, In a significant ruling addressing the intersection of customary practices and pension law, the Punjab & Haryana High Court on 07 March 2026 held that karewa marriage (widow’s customary remarriage to the brother of her deceased husband) cannot be treated as remarriage for the purpose of denying family pension.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar ruled that family pension is a social security measure flowing from the constitutional vision of a welfare state and cannot be denied through a rigid or mechanical interpretation of service rules.

Allowing all three writ petitions, the Court directed authorities to restore the petitioners’ family pension and release arrears within four months, failing which interest at 7.5% per annum would be payable.

Pension Stopped After Karewa Marriage

The petitioners were widows of employees who had died while in service in departments such as Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and Haryana State Electricity Board.

After the death of their husbands, each petitioner entered into karewa marriage with the younger brother of the deceased, a customary practice prevalent in certain communities.

Following these marriages, the authorities discontinued the family pension, citing service rules which provide that family pension ceases upon remarriage of the widow.

The petitioners approached the High Court arguing that karewa marriage does not sever their relationship with the deceased employee’s family, and therefore the rationale behind pension disqualification does not apply.

“Pension Is Not A Bounty But A Right Linked To Survival”

The Court reiterated the well-settled principle laid down by the Supreme Court in D.K. Nakara v. Union of India (1983) that:

“Pension and retiral benefits are not bounty by nature but are akin to wages relied upon by the pensioner and his family for assistance.”

Justice Brar emphasised that family pension often becomes the only source of income for the dependents of a deceased employee and therefore plays a vital role in ensuring financial security and survival of the family.

Family Pension Linked To Right To Dignified Life Under Article 21

The Court further connected family pension with the right to life and dignified existence under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Referring to Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi (1981), the Court observed:

“The right to life includes the right to live a dignified meaningful life with bare necessities such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter.”

The judgment held that denial of family pension on technical grounds like karewa marriage could offend the constitutional guarantee of a dignified life.

Karewa Marriage Serves Important Social Functions

The Court analysed the social and customary significance of karewa marriage, which involves a widow marrying the brother of her deceased husband.

The Court explained that such marriages:

• Ensure care and support for minor children,

• Maintain continuity of family relationships,

• Provide protection and dignity to widows, and

• Allow aged parents of the deceased to remain supported within the same household.

Justice Brar observed:

“Upon such remarriage, the ties between the widow, her children and the matrimonial family are not severed by the death of her first husband.”

Thus, unlike a conventional remarriage, karewa marriage does not create a new family unit or shift financial responsibility away from the deceased employee’s family.

Legislative Intent Behind Disqualification On Remarriage

The Court examined the purpose behind rules disqualifying widows from family pension upon remarriage.

It noted that such provisions are not punitive but redistributive, based on the assumption that:

• the widow joins a new family, and

• the financial responsibility shifts to the new household.

However, in karewa marriages:

• the widow continues living in the same household,

• financial responsibilities remain within the same family, and

• children and parents of the deceased remain under the same care structure.

Therefore, the Court held that applying the disqualification mechanically would ignore social reality.

Punjab Rules Already Recognise Karewa Marriage

The Court also referred to an amendment made by the Punjab Government in 1975 to Rule 8.35(2)(b) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, which explicitly recognises that:

“A widow who remarries her deceased husband’s brother and continues to live a communal life or contributes to the support of other dependents shall not be disqualified for the grant of extraordinary pension.”

This legislative recognition further supported the view that karewa marriages do not defeat the purpose of family pension provisions.

Beneficial Legislation Must Be Interpreted Liberally

Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal (2022), the Court emphasised that beneficial welfare legislation must receive a purposive interpretation.

Quoting the judgment, the Court observed:

“Words occurring in statutes of liberal import such as social welfare legislation are not to be put in Procrustean beds or shrunk to Lilliputian dimensions.”

Thus, a strict literal interpretation that defeats the social purpose of family pension provisions must be avoided.

State As Model Employer Must Recognise Social Realities

The Court also reminded the State of its obligation to act as a model employer.

Justice Brar observed that:

“The State must stay alive to the social realities and endeavour to balance equity with the statutory mandate.”

Rigid administrative interpretation of pension rules, the Court held, cannot override the humanitarian purpose behind family pension schemes.

Final Directions Of The Court

Allowing all three petitions, the High Court issued the following directions:

• Family pension of the petitioners shall be reinstated,

• Karewa marriage shall not be treated as remarriage for pension purposes,

• Authorities must recalculate and release arrears within four months,

• If payment is delayed beyond four months, interest at 7.5% per annum shall be payable.

The judgment marks an important recognition of customary practices within the framework of constitutional welfare principles.

By holding that karewa marriage does not disqualify a widow from family pension, the Punjab & Haryana High Court reinforced that pension rules must be interpreted in a manner that protects social security and dignity of dependents rather than defeating their purpose through rigid formalism.

Date of Decision: 07 March 2026