Marrying deceased husband's brother not disqualification for family pension: HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a widow’s “karewa” marriage with the brother of her deceased husband cannot be treated as “remarriage” to disqualify her from family pension.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar also said the state, as a model employer, must consider social realities while implementing service rules. Allowing two related writ petitions filed by a widow whose pension was stopped on the grounds of remarriage, the court directed reinstatement of family pension and set aside a recovery order.

The court said the petitioner had solemnised a “karewa” marriage with the younger brother of her deceased husband. The family pension was initially granted in her name, but was later credited in the names of her minor children. The pension was stopped after her son attained 25 years and her daughter was married.

Explaining the purpose of karewa marriage, recognised under the Hindu Marriage Act, it said: “Karewa marriages, i.e. remarriage of a widow to the brother of her deceased husband, serve a social purpose, aid in providing patronage to minor children, preserving dignity of widows and ensuring continuity of care for aged parents.”

“The ties between the widow, her children and the matrimonial family are not severed by the death of her first husband. This custom also assists in the social and financial rehabilitation of widows and their children,” it stated.

Service rules often disqualified remarried widows on the assumption that her new family would now bear the responsibility for her financial and social wellbeing. The benefits, as such, were redirected to the children and parents of the deceased employee. “Considering that the petitioner remained an active member of the family of her deceased first husband, it cannot be assumed that her connection with the family of the deceased has been severed. There has been no fragmentation of the financial responsibilities as the children remain under the same guardianship structure and the aged parents reside in the same household,” the Bench held.

Rejecting a rigid reading of the rules, the court ruled a strict and mechanical disqualification would amount to overlooking social reality “to make good an administrative technicality, thereby defeating the beneficial nature of the provisions for family pension.”