Shimla, Himachal Pradesh
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has delivered an important judgment concerning family pension. The court held that, under certain circumstances, a second wife can be entitled to family pension after the death of the first wife, even if the second marriage, solemnised while the first wife was alive, was not legally valid under the Hindu Marriage Act. The court considered the principles of social justice and economic protection important in the case.
The case involved Mahesh Ram, who retired from government service in 2003 and was receiving a pension. His first wife, Kamlesh Devi, died on April 20, 2020. The couple had no children.
Second Marriage Was With First Wife’s Sister
According to the available information, Mahesh Ram married his first wife Kamlesh Devi’s sister, Jwala Devi, while Kamlesh Devi was still alive because the couple had no children. After Kamlesh Devi’s death, Mahesh Ram requested that Jwala Devi’s name be recorded as his second wife in the Pension Payment Order (PPO) and service records.
However, the state government and the concerned department rejected the request. The department argued that the second marriage, performed while the first wife was alive, was not valid under Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The government also relied on the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
Single Judge Ruled in Favour of Petitioner
Mahesh Ram challenged the government’s decision before the High Court. On September 17, 2025, a single judge ruled in his favour and directed the state government to record Jwala Devi’s name in the service records after the death of the first wife.
The state government challenged the decision before a division bench of the High Court. A bench comprising Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin Chandra Negi dismissed the government’s appeal.
Court Emphasises Social Justice
The division bench observed that such cases should not be viewed solely from a technical or conventional legal perspective and that the social circumstances of the parties must also be considered. The court gave importance to the long-term cohabitation between the couple and the principle of social justice.
The court also clarified that a second wife cannot ordinarily claim family pension while the first wife is alive. However, circumstances change after the death of the first wife, and completely denying economic protection to the second wife on the basis of long-term cohabitation would not be appropriate in the circumstances of the case.
The court observed that the purpose of the law should not be to leave a woman without support or expose her to financial hardship. Taking this social-justice approach into consideration, the court dismissed the state government’s appeal.
The judgment is being viewed as significant in family-pension cases, particularly in balancing marital status, long-term cohabitation, social circumstances, and economic security.
