The Court observed: “Thus, the second marriage of anyone, without dissolution of first marriage cannot be treated as a valid marriage and such second wife cannot be treated as a 'widow' of the deceased Government Servant in terms of Rule 66 & 67 of the Rules of 1996…In cases where the deceased employee had a second wife without legally divorcing the first wife, only the first wife would be entitled to the pension benefits.” Additionally, Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand ruled that requiring a succession certificate for claiming family pension was inappropriate, as such certificates pertain to the recovery of debts or securities, and family pension does not fall under this category.

Case Background

The petitioner, the first wife of the deceased, sought family pension following his demise. The employee, who retired in 1983, filed for divorce in 1987, but the petition was returned with instructions to file it in the appropriate court. No subsequent petition was filed, leaving the marriage legally intact. The deceased employee, in response to a maintenance application, acknowledged the petitioner as his legally wedded wife but argued that a social divorce had occurred.

After his death in 2016, the petitioner applied for family pension. However, the State insisted on a succession certificate, further arguing that the deceased had submitted a nomination application to the Pension Department naming his second wife and her children as beneficiaries.

Court’s Observations

The Court held that a social divorce, though possibly accepted within certain communities, does not alter the legal status of a marriage. The petitioner remained the legal wife until the employee’s death and was thereby his widow. “Social divorce” was described as a social arrangement without legal validity, having no impact on the legal obligations or marital status of the couple.

Rule 66 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (“the Rules”) defines “family,” which includes a widow or widower, although the term “widow” is not explicitly defined. Under Section 5 of the Act, a marriage is void if either party has a living spouse, as reinforced by Section 11 of the Act. The Court remarked: “Hence, it is clear that marriage covered by Section 11 of the Act of 1955 are void from inception and a Hindu woman, who married a Hindu male during subsistence of his marriage, has not been included in the definition of 'family' under the Rules of 1996.” Recognizing relationships arising from such invalid marriages, the Court emphasized, would undermine public interest by indirectly encouraging employees to enter into second marriages despite their legal prohibition.

Succession Certificate and Pension

On the issue of a succession certificate, the Court clarified that under the Indian Succession Act, 1925, such certificates are issued for the recovery of debts or securities, which does not encompass family pension. Referring to the Patna High Court case of Ganga Ram v. The Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, the Court affirmed that pension is considered property, not debt, and thus does not necessitate a succession certificate.

Legitimacy of Children and Final Ruling

While the second wife was not entitled to family pension due to the invalidity of her marriage, the children born from this union were deemed legitimate and eligible for terminal benefits as per the Rules.

The Court directed the State to provide family pension to the petitioner along with arrears and 9% interest, and to ensure benefits for the legitimate children of the deceased, all within two months of receiving the order. It also ruled that a succession certificate was unnecessary for processing the pension claims.

Cause Title: Urmila Devi v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Case No: SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3193/2022

Date: September-03-2024

Bench: Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand

[Read/Download order]