Karewa marriage not a disqualification for family pension: Punjab and Haryana HC

Reaffirming the social purpose of family pension and the State’s obligation as a model employer, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a widow’s “karewa” marriage with her deceased husband’s brother cannot be treated as “remarriage” to disqualify her from family pension.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar also made it clear that the State, as a model employer, was required to remain alive to social realities while implementing service rules. Allowing two related writ petitions filed by a widow whose pension was stopped on grounds of remarriage, Justice Brar directed reinstatement of family pension and set aside an impugned recovery order.

Karewa marriage has ‘harmonising effect’, not disqualifying consequence

Justice Brar observed that 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 entirely after her son attaining 25 years and the daughter got married.

Explaining the social purpose of karewa marriage recognised under the Hindu Marriage Act, Justice Brar asserted: “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 Bench noted that such marriage did not sever familial links. “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.”

Justice Brar observed that the service rules often disqualified remarried widows on the assumption that her new family would now bear the responsibility for her financial and social well-being. 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, Justice Brar 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.”

Justice Brar added customary practice of karewa marriage, as such, could not be interpreted as remarriage in the manner envisaged by the service rules. “The petitioner ought not to be punished merely for remarrying when her subsequent marriage has not resulted in her unjust enrichment at the cost of other dependents of her deceased first husband.”

State a model employer

Referring to the State’s responsibility, Justice Brar asserted: “The State, being a model employer, must stay alive to the social realities and endeavour to balance equity with the statutory mandate, particularly when it is clear that a custom such as karewa marriage is in harmony with the settled law.”

The Bench also clarified that the right to family pension was not vested in a widow alone but typically flowed to all immediate dependents of a deceased employee. “As such, the dependents, when possible, must be allowed to be treated as a unit as their lives are not untethered from each other.”

Pension linked to survival and dignity

Placing the matter in a broader constitutional framework, Justice Brar referred to tthe survival value of retirement benefits by observing: “Oftentimes, retirement benefits are the only source of income for many families, especially when the primary breadwinner has passed away. The kin of the retired/deceased employees not only rely on the same for fiscal security but also for their very survival.”

Justice Brar asserted the right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution was not limited to mere animal-like existence, but included the right to live a dignified meaningful life.”

Recovery after two decades disallowed

In the connected petition, recovery proceedings were initiated for Rs 12,66,082. The amount was allegedly disbursed in excess after pension payable to the minor daughter was not stopped in 1996 and continued till 2019.

Recording absence of fraud, the Court observed: “Admittedly, the additional sum was not disbursed on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on part of the petitioner or her daughter.”

Noting that the authorities detected the excess after more than two decades, the Court held that the respondents had no locus to demand reimbursement for the same from the petitioner or her daughter at such a belated stage.”

Directions

The court ordered: “The concerned authority/respondents are directed to reinstate the family pension of the respective petitioners as karewa marriage cannot be equated to remarriage for the limited purpose of grant of family pension. As such, the petitioners are not disqualified by the applicable Rules.”