Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
In a significant ruling dated 22 March 2021, the Patna High Court held that a second wife of a deceased Hindu government employee is not entitled to claim family pension, even if she lived with the deceased or claims marriage after obtaining government permission. The Court reaffirmed that under Rule 186 of the Bihar Pension Rules and existing Supreme Court judgments, only the first legally wedded wife is entitled to family pension, unless the employee’s personal law specifically allows polygamy (as in the case of Muslims).
The petitioner in this case claimed to be the second wife of a deceased teacher who had served as an Assistant Teacher in a Middle School since 1974 and retired on 30 November 2012. After his retirement, he received a pension payment order on 9 April 2013, which included photographs of both women—his first wife and the petitioner. The employee died on 18 August 2015, leaving behind both women.
The dispute arose when the Senior Accounts Officer, Bihar, Patna, issued an order on 13 March 2019 directing that family pension be paid only to the first wife. The petitioner approached the High Court, claiming that she too should receive family pension since she was one of the widows and had no source of livelihood.
Her main argument was that she had married the deceased with the permission of the government and was therefore entitled to a share in the pension under the Bihar Finance Department Circular No. 149/2010-1549 dated 27 June 2011.
However, the first wife (Respondent No. 8) strongly opposed this claim, alleging that the petitioner was producing false documents and that no official permission for a second marriage was ever granted. The first wife also cited a 2014 decision of the Patna High Court — Kalawati Devi v. State of Bihar [2014 (3) PLJR 587] — which held that the circular of 2011 applied only to Muslim employees governed by Mohammedan Personal Law, and not to Hindus.
The District Education Officer and the District Programme Officer (respondents 3 and 4) also filed counter-affidavits confirming that their office records did not show any government approval for a second marriage by the deceased employee.
The Court observed that:
- The petitioner failed to produce any valid proof of official permission for her alleged marriage.
- Under Rule 186 of the Bihar Pension Rules, family pension is payable only to the legally wedded first wife.
- The 2011 circular cited by the petitioner was a limited exception created for Muslim employees, who are legally permitted under personal law to have more than one wife.
Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Rameshwari Devi v. State of Bihar & Ors., (2000) 2 SCC 431, the Court reiterated that a second wife who marries a government servant while his first wife is alive is not entitled to family pension. Only children from such a relationship may have limited rights, but not the second wife herself.
After reviewing the facts and legal position, Hon’ble Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh concluded that the petitioner’s claim had no merit. The writ petition was dismissed.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment (For general public or government)
This ruling reaffirms an important legal principle:
- Under Hindu Law, a second marriage during the lifetime of the first spouse is void. Therefore, the second wife has no legal right to pensionary benefits after the employee’s death.
- The Court has made a clear distinction between Hindu and Muslim government employees, as Muslim personal law permits more than one marriage. Accordingly, only Muslim employees can claim the limited benefit under the 2011 circular.
- The judgment safeguards public funds by ensuring that family pension—meant for legally recognized dependents—is not shared with claimants whose marriages are void in law.
- It also prevents misuse of pensionary benefits and fraudulent claims often made after a government servant’s death.
- For the government, the decision serves as an authoritative clarification that administrative authorities must verify the legal validity of marriages before processing pension claims.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision with Reasoning
- Whether a second wife of a Hindu government employee is entitled to family pension?
— No. Rule 186 of the Bihar Pension Rules restricts family pension to the legally wedded first wife. - Whether government permission for second marriage was obtained?
— No. Records showed no such permission. The petitioner failed to submit credible evidence. - Whether the 2011 Bihar Finance Department Circular applies to this case?
— No. The circular applies only to Muslim employees governed by Mohammedan Law. - Relevant Precedent: Rameshwari Devi v. State of Bihar & Ors. [(2000) 2 SCC 431] — Second wife of a government servant cannot claim family pension.
Judgments Referred by Parties
- Kalawati Devi v. State of Bihar, 2014 (3) PLJR 587
Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court
- Rameshwari Devi v. State of Bihar & Ors., (2000) 2 SCC 431
Case Title
Dulari Devi v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Case Number
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14389 of 2019
Citation(s)
2021(2) PLJR 392
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh
Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
- For the Petitioner: Mr. Murari Narain Choudhary, Mr. Vijay Kumar
- For the State: Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey (AAG-15), Mr. Rakesh Narayan Singh (AC to AAG-15)
- For Accountant General: Dr. Anand Kumar
- For Respondent No. 8: Mr. Abhay Kumar Thakur, Mr. Arunendra Kumar Thakur, Ms. Sukriti Kumari
Link to Judgment
MTUjMTQzODkjMjAxOSMxI04=-SRlfx–ak1–EzDy4=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
