CUTTACK: The Orissa High Court has rejected an appeal filed by a woman seeking family pension as the second wife of a deceased government employee, holding that after the enactment of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, monogamy is the “grand norm with no exception whatsoever”.
Upholding the order of a single judge on July 16, 2025, a division bench of Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad and Justice Chittaranjan Dash stated that granting pensionary benefits to a second wife would amount to “placing premium on illegality”. The single judge had refused to interfere with the decision of the School and Mass Education department rejecting the woman’s claim on November 12, 2021.
The appellant had challenged the departmental order after her request for family pension was turned down on the ground that her marriage with the deceased employee was contracted during the subsistence of his first marriage.
In the January 13 judgement, the division bench made strong observations on the sanctity of marriage under Hindu law. “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 court said.
Rejecting the argument that the second marriage was justified as the first wife was childless, the bench observed, “The vehement submission of counsel for appellant that, her client entered into wedlock because the first wife did not beget any child is too dangerous to be accepted. 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.”
The court also declined to accept the plea based on pension rules using the term ‘wife’ or ‘wives’. It held: The word ‘wives’ appearing in the Rules does not authorise an employee to contract marriage with multiple persons by way of polygamy or polyandry. Pension rules, the bench said, cannot be interpreted to defeat the legislative policy underlying statutes such as the Hindu Marriage Act and the Indian Penal Code.
Noting that the appellant’s marriage amounted to bigamy punishable under law, the court stated that granting family pension to a “so called ‘second wife’, amounts to placing premium on illegality”.
Concluding that the issue was no longer res integra, the court held that the writ appeal was devoid of merit and dismissed it.