IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.A. NO.1460 OF 2025

In the matter of an appeal from the order dated 16.07.2025

passed in W.P.(C) No.3822 of 2022.

--------------

Kankalata Dwibedi …. Appellant

-versus-

State of Odisha and others

…. Respondents

Advocates Appeared in this case

For Appellant - M/s. Madhumita Panda, J.

Bhuyan & D. Behera, Advocates

For Respondents - Mr. J.K. Khandayatray,

ASC

----------- CORAM

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Hearing & Judgment : 13.01.2026

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PER KRISHNA S. DIXIT,J

This intra-court appeal calls in question a learned Single Judge’s order

dated 16.07.2025, whereby Appellant’s W.P.(C) No.3822 of 2022 has been

negatived. In the said petition, Appellant had called in question the order dated 12.11.2021 passed by OP No.4, whereby her claim for family pension has been negatived. That order reads as under:

“ORDER The Hon'bie High Court of Orissa in their Order Dtd.7.7.2021 passed in W.P.(C)(OAC) No. 872 of 2017 have directed the O.P. No.2 as well as the O.P. No.4 (the Controller of Accounts, Odisha, Bhubaneswar) to treat the writ petition of the petitioner as a representation and to take a decision as appropriate in this case.

On going through the writ petition as well as annexure attached thereto, it is seen by the O.P. No.4 that Late Niranjan Dwibedy has acquired Smt. Kanaklata Dwibedy as 2^nd wife in his life time during the existence of his wife Late Indumati Dwibedy. So, as per Note below Clause- (d) of Sub-Rule (6) of Rule, 56 of OCS (Pension)-1992, Smt. Kanaklata Dwibedy being the 2^nd ife of Late Niranjan Dwibedy is not entitled to family pension, not being legally married wife of Late Dwibedy. Therefore, the O.P. No.4 has no scope to authorize family pension in favour of Smt.

Kanaklata Dwibedy.

In view of the above observations, the representation of the petitioner is considered and disposed of.”

2. Learned counsel for the Appellant vehemently argues that the Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 specifically employ the expression ‘wife’/’wives’ and therefore, her client being the second wife of the deceased employee, the first wife also having passed away, is entitled to family pension. In support of her claim, learned counsel for the Appellant presses into service the judgment of Apex Court in Smt. Sriramabai w/o. Pundalik. Bhave v. The Captain, Record Officer for O.I.C. Records, Sena Corps Abhilekh, 2023 INSC 744. Learned ASC appearing for the Respondents opposes the appeal making submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been structured.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and having perused appeal papers, we decline indulgence in the matter, broadly agreeing with the reasoning of learned Single Judge, and also the added reasons hereunder:

3.1. After the enactment of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, amongst the Hindus monogamy is the thumb rule with no exception whatsoever. Therefore, the idea of very second marriage during the subsistence of first one abhors the pith & substance of this Act. The vehement submission of learned counsel for Appellant that, her client entered into wedlock because the first wife did not beget any child is too dangerous to be accepted, inasmuch as that shakes the very corner stone of the institution of marriage, whose sanctity is founded inter alia on monogamy. 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. To put it in other words, after the Act came into force, monogamy is the grand norm with no exception whatsoever. The limited legitimacy conferred on children of void marriage as per the policy enacted in Section 16 of the Act, does not extend to the parties to a void marital relationship.

3.2. M