-
by Admin
15 February 2026 5:01 PM
"To be a widow, a valid marriage between the woman and the deceased employee is a sine qua non" – High Court of Orissa delivered a significant judgment denying the claim for family pension made by the second wife of a deceased government employee. The Division Bench comprising Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad and Justice Chittaranjan Dash reaffirmed the settled legal position that a bigamous marriage, being void ab initio under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, does not confer the legal status of a "widow" for the purpose of claiming family pension.
The judgment not only delves deep into the interpretation of the Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992, but also affirms that pensionary entitlements must be tested against the overarching framework of personal and penal laws governing marital validity under Hindu law.
“What Is Void Ab Initio Remains Void”: Court Rejects Posthumous Validation of Bigamous Marriage
The principal observation of the Court was unequivocal: “What is void ab initio, does not become valid by the happening of subsequent events, there being the maxim ex nihilo nihil fit, meaning out of nothing, nothing comes out.” The Court dismissed the argument that the demise of the first wife of the deceased employee could retrospectively validate the second marriage.
Claim for Pension Based on Bigamous Marriage
The case originated from a writ petition filed by Kankalata Dwibedi, the self-claimed second wife of Late Niranjan Dwibedi, a government servant. Her application for family pension was rejected by the Controller of Accounts, Odisha, on the ground that her marriage with the deceased occurred during the lifetime of his first wife, Indumati Dwibedi, and was therefore void. The Single Judge upheld this decision in W.P.(C) No. 3822 of 2022. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred the present intra-court writ appeal.
Kankalata’s counsel argued that the Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992, employ the expression ‘wife’/‘wives’, which should include second wives especially after the death of the first wife. Heavy reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s decision in Smt. Sriramabai v. Record Officer, 2023 INSC 744, to argue that long cohabitation and subsequent demise of the first spouse could give rise to a presumption of marriage.
The respondents, represented by the Additional Standing Counsel, rebutted the argument, asserting that the marriage was void under Sections 11 and 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Sections 494-495 of the Indian Penal Code, and therefore conferred no legal status on the appellant.
Can a Second Wife in a Void Marriage Claim Family Pension?
The Bench framed the crux of the matter succinctly — Does a void marriage contracted during the lifetime of a legally wedded spouse create any entitlement to family pension under statutory service rules? The answer, as the Court held, is a resounding no.
Citing Mayne’s Hindu Law, the Bench reiterated that: “During the lifetime of a legally wedded wife or husband, and when the marriage is subsisting, the husband or the wife as the case may be, cannot have a second marriage. Not only is a bigamous marriage void under this Act but bigamy is punishable under section 17 read with sections 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code.”
The Court forcefully rejected the argument that pension rules, by using the term ‘wives’, could validate a bigamous union. “The word ‘wives’ appearing in the Rules does not authorize an employee to contract marriage with multiple persons by way of polygamy or polyandry,” the judgment stated, adding that statutory rules cannot be interpreted in a manner that undermines the public policy of monogamy enshrined in the Hindu Marriage Act.
The Bench further underscored that “law is neither a slave of dictionary nor a servant of grammar book”, criticizing the grammatical construction argument advanced by the appellant.
Apex Court and High Courts Speak with One Voice
The High Court held that the precedent in Smt. Sriramabai was inapplicable to the facts of the present case. That decision involved a situation where the first wife had already passed away and there was prolonged cohabitation, allowing the Court to draw a presumption of marriage under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act.
In contrast, in the present case, the second marriage was contracted during the subsistence of a valid first marriage — a situation squarely governed by the bar under Section 5(i) read with Sections 11 and 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Court cautioned that “a case is an authority for the proposition laid down in a given fact matrix, and not for all that which logically follows,” referring to the House of Lords' dictum in Quinn v. Letham.
The Court also relied upon the Supreme Court’s judgment in Raj Kumari v. Krishna, (2015) 14 SCC 511, and a Division Bench decision of the Karnataka High Court in Mahalakshmamma v. The Secretary, 2023:KHC:41044 (DB), both of which denied pensionary claims to second wives in bigamous relationships. In Mahalakshmamma, the Karnataka High Court had observed: “Recognizing such relations arising from second marriage during the subsistence of first one is detrimental to public interest inasmuch as that would facilitate directly or indirectly the employees contracting the second marriage, which is legally impermissible.”
No Pension, No Recognition for Second Wife in Void Marriage
In summation, the Court held:
That family pension is payable only to a legally wedded wife, and a void marriage confers no enforceable right.
That pensionary rules cannot be interpreted in derogation of central statutory provisions such as the Hindu Marriage Act or the IPC.
That allowing claims of second wives in bigamous marriages would place a premium on illegality, thereby defeating the very purpose of pension laws meant to protect legitimate dependents.
The appeal was accordingly dismissed, with the Court affirming the order of the Single Judge and the authorities’ rejection of Kankalata Dwibedi’s claim for family pension.
Date of Decision: 13 January 2026
