Cuttack | Special Correspondent: Arun Sharma

Reaffirming the core principle of Hindu personal law, the High Court has ruled that monogamy is a mandatory and non-negotiable rule under the Hindu Marriage Act, and a second wife is not entitled to family pension if the first marriage was subsisting at the time of the second union.


The decisive order was passed by a division bench comprising Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad and Justice Chittaranjan Dash, which dismissed an appeal filed by a woman seeking family pension as the second wife of a deceased government employee.


Highlighting the Court’s Order, the bench categorically held that any marriage contracted during the subsistence of a first Hindu marriage is void in law and amounts to bigamy, an offence punishable under Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, read with Section 495 of the Indian Penal Code. Granting pensionary benefits in such circumstances, the court observed, would be tantamount to “placing a premium on illegality”.


The petitioner had challenged an earlier order that upheld the decision of the school and mass education department rejecting her pension claim. The department had noted that her marriage was solemnised while the employee’s first marriage was legally valid and continuing. The High Court found no illegality or procedural irregularity in the department’s decision and refused to interfere.


Rejecting the argument that the second marriage was entered into because the first wife was childless, the bench termed the submission “too dangerous to be accepted”. The court made it clear that childlessness is not a legally justifiable ground for contracting a second marriage under Hindu law.


The judges further clarified that the use of the word “wives” in pension rules does not authorise or legitimise multiple marriages, nor can service or pension regulations override statutory laws enacted by Parliament, including the Hindu Marriage Act and the IPC.


Legal experts say the ruling sends a strong and unambiguous message that personal laws and statutory mandates must prevail over administrative conveniences, reinforcing the sanctity of monogamy and ensuring that public benefits are not extended in violation of established law.