Orissa High Court rules that a second marriage during the lifetime of the first wife is void under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Consequently, the second wife is not entitled to a family pension under the Odisha Civil Services Rules.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
ORISSA: The Orissa High Court recently dismissed a family pension claim filed by a second wife, ruling that a marriage contracted during the lifetime of the first wife is void under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. This judgment reinforces the principle of monogamy in Hindu law and clarifies the scope of the Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992.
Background of the Case
The appellant, Kankalata Dwibedi, sought family pension following the death of her husband, Late Niranjan Dwibedy, a government employee. Her claim was denied by the Controller of Accounts, Odisha, because she was a second wife during the subsistence of his first marriage to Late Indumati Dwibedy.
The rejection order relied on Clause (d) of Sub-Rule (6) of Rule 56 of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992, which specifies that family pension is payable only to a legally married wife. Since the second marriage was contracted while the first wife was alive, it was deemed void ab initio.
Kankalata Dwibedi filed a writ petition (W.P.(C) No. 3822 of 2022) challenging this rejection, which was dismissed by a Single Judge of the Orissa High Court on July 16, 2025. Aggrieved, she filed an intra-court appeal, which has now been rejected by the Division Bench.
Arguments Presented
Appellant’s Claims:
- The Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules use the term “wife/wives,” which could include a second wife, especially after the death of the first wife.
- She argued that her marriage to the deceased was necessary as the first wife did not have children.
- Relied on Smt. Sriramabai v. Captain, Record Officer, Sena Corps Abhilekh (2023 INSC 744) to argue the presumption of a valid marriage.
Respondent’s Stand:
- Family pension is only payable to a legally married widow.
- Second marriage during the subsistence of a first marriage constitutes bigamy, prohibited under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and punishable under Sections 494, 495, and 17 IPC.
- Allowing the claim would set a dangerous precedent, encouraging illegal polygamous marriages.
Court’s Observations
1. Monogamy is the Norm
Justice Krishna Shripad Dixit emphasized:
“Following the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, monogamy is the thumb rule with no exception whatsoever. The Act does not recognize childlessness as a justifiable circumstance for entering into wedlock with a person who is already in the subsisting wedlock with another.”
The Court noted that void marriages cannot be validated by subsequent events, citing the legal maxim ex nihilo nihil fit (“out of nothing, nothing comes out”).
2. Interpretation of Pension Rules
The Court rejected the appellant’s reliance on the term “wives” in the Pension Rules:
“The word ‘wives’ does not authorize an employee to contract multiple marriages. Law is neither a slave of the dictionary nor a servant of grammar.”
The Court clarified that a family pension is reserved for widows of valid marriages.
The judgment distinguished Smt. Sriramabai (2023), noting that the case involved a presumption of valid marriage after prolonged cohabitation with no subsisting prior marriage. In contrast, the appellant’s marriage occurred during a legally valid first marriage, constituting bigamy.
The Court also referred to:
- Raj Kumari v. Krishna (2015 14 SCC 511) – denied family pension to a second wife.
- Mahalakshmamma v. The Secretary (2023:KHC:41044-DB) – emphasized that recognizing second marriages during the subsistence of the first is against public policy.
The Orissa High Court Division Bench upheld the Single Judge’s order, rejecting the family pension claim. The Court ruled:
- Second marriages during the subsistence of a first marriage are void ab initio.
- The death of the first wife does not validate an earlier void marriage.
- Family pension under Odisha Civil Services Rules is payable only to legally wedded wives.
Case Title:
Kankalata Dwibedi vs State of Odisha and others
W.A. NO.1460 OF 2025
READ JUDGMENT
