Muslim Personal Law permits second marriages and subsequent rights to family pension; prior government circulars cannot override this principle.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER

3 04-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief;

“1(i) To quash the reasoned order bearing Memo No. 1493, Birpur, dated 01.07.2019 (Annexure P/1) issued under the signature of the Chief Engineer, Birpur, Supaul, whereby and where under, the claim of the petitioner for grant of family pension in compliance to the order dated 20.06.2018 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 9491 of 2010 (Annexure-P/7) has arbitrarily been rejected on the basis of incorrect facts and in violation of order passed by this Hon'ble Court, which is reported in 2017(2) P.L.J.R.-920. Aforesaid order is further bad in law, because, the petitioner who is second wife of Late Muslim Mian and she is only surviving widow of her husband Late Muslim Mian.

(ii) To quash the part of Clause (3) of Resolution bearing Memo No. 1549 dated 27.06.2011 (Annexure-2) so far it relates to the petitioner issued under the signature of Principal Secretary, whereby and where under in compliance to the order dated 04.01.2011 passed by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in C.W.J.C. No. 9491/2010 (Bibi Nazia Vs the State of Bihar and Others), even in case of Muslim Personal Law, he has held that, if the second marriage is solemnized with the permission of Govt., in such case, Family Pension can be divided equally between more than one widow, ignoring the spirit of order passed by the Division Bench in the case of the petitioner, who is second wife of Late Muslim Mian, who died in harness. Aforesaid Resolution Special Clause (3) thereof is further bad in law, because said Clause has been inserted in the Resolution in violation of order dated 04.01.2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 9491 of 2010 by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court, fully aware of the fact that Muslim Personal Law permits Four Marriage irrespective of the fact that permission is granted or not.

(iii) To direct the respondents to sanction and grant Family Pension to the petitioner, who is only surviving widow of Late Muslim Mian, who died in harness on 21.09.2008 leaving behind his widow (petitioner) and tame Six Children, most of them was minor at the time of death.

(iv) That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant any other relief or reliefs to the petitioner as this Hon'ble Court may thinks it proper in the present facts and circumstances of this case.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the order passed by the Hon’ble Co-ordinate Bench in the case of the petitioner vide order dated 20.06.2018 in C.W.J.C. No. 9491 of 2010 , the impugned order, as contained in Memo No. 1493 dated 01.07.2019 appended with the writ petition (Annexure-P/1), is said to have been passed under the signature of Chief Engineer, Birpur, Supaul, whereby the claim of the petitioner has been rejected, showing the requirement of taking permission from the State Government before contracting the second marriage and other connected material, not being available on record for consideration.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue has already been given quietus by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nishar Ahmad Khan v. State of Bihar & Others reported in (2013) LabIC 3077, wherein it has categorically been stated that the said requirement is not applicable in the case of the petitioner, whose matrimonial issues are guided by the Personal Laws. For reference, the relevant portion of the judgment, which specifically deals with the issues involved in the case at law, are extracted herein below:-

Strange are the ways. in the State.

Strangers are its officers and devoid of any common sense. B