The main legal point established in the judgment is that the law does not recognize a second marriage of a Hindu, and therefore, the second wife of a government servant is not entitled to family pension.

1. Petitioner admittedly is the second wife of a government servant, namely, late Madan Mohan Prasad. The prayer in the writ application is for a direction upon the respondents to pay her family pension especially in view of the fact that the first wife never got family pension and she is dead now sometime in the year 2006. Verification with regard to status of the petitioner has been done by the respondent and there is no dispute that she was the second wife of the erstwhile employee. The hitch is that despite the above fact having been verified, the claim stands rejected in terms of Annexure-3. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that such a decision contrary to the actual state of affairs is a totally arbitrary decision obviously putting the life of the present petitioner at peril as she has no alternative to survival.

2. At the very outset, when the matter was taken up on the previous date, the stand of the State counsel was that there is no right of the petitioner to demand pension of any kind from the State authorities as the law does not recognize a second marriage of a Hindu. Pension can only accrue in accordance with rules and since a second marriage is a void marriage, therefore, the law does not recognize nor the State recognize the second marriage and they have no obligation to pay pension. In this regard, the attention of the Court was drawn to a circular dated 6.9.1996, which clearly indicated that a second wife of a government servant is not entitled to family pension. Such circular, however, was modified in the year 2011 because of the Mohammedan Personal Law which occupies the field in relation to a second marriage. The 1996 circular was diluted making an exception with regard to Mohammedans. So far as Hindus are concerned, they do not have a right contrary to the law to marry and create liability upon the State.

3. There is no dispute in law after looking at the substantive provision of the Hindu Marriage Act that a second marriage during the life time of the first wife is a void marriage. A void marriage means a marriage in nullity. If this is the position then obviously there is no obligation upon the State authorities to entertain any claim for pension or create any liability against the State with regard to second wife of a government servant.

4. Counsel for the petitioner, however, relies on a single Judge’s order passed in the case of Most. Manorma Devi v. State of Bihar, reported in 2001 (4) PLJR 275. The counsel tries to draw inference from the said adjudication by urging that even in that case there were two wives. Pension was given to both the wives. On the death of first wife, the Court decided that the total pension will not revert to the second wife but will revert to the Treasury or to the state exchequer to the extent of the share of first wife.

5. The entirety of the facts does not emerge from the order passed in the case of Most. Manorama Devi. Therefore, that cannot be a binding precedent for the proposition which has been raised against the petitioner, in the present case.

6. The main issue still remains that contrary to the 1996 circular as well as government servant conduct rules, coupled with the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, this Court cannot confer a status of a valid marriage upon the second wife when admittedly the second marriage was performed during the life time of the first wife and the first wife died relatively recently in the year 2006 and the husband passed away in the year 2011.

7. If the present petitioner has progenies and if they are minors, they surely have right to assert their claim before the respondent authorities through their father but the Court will not give a direction upon the respondents to pay a penny by way of family pension in favour of the present petitioner as she has no legal status in the eye of law.

8. Before parting, learned counsel for the petitioner produces a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Assistant