Prior marriage doesn't snuff out rights of second family: HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that rights of second family to retirement benefits do not vanish merely because a government employee had married earlier as well. The court asserted that the extent of entitlement for the second wife would hinge on the existence of a surviving widow from the first marriage and her dependence on the benefits.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar also made it clear that the second family would remain fully entitled to all benefits in cases where the first spouse was no longer a dependent.

"In the context of Indian service jurisprudence, bigamy is a serious misconduct. However, the rights of second wife and children born out of the second marriage are recognised and preserved by the Rules itself, which entitle them to receive at least 50 per cent of the retirement dues upon death of the employee. Be that as it may, the extent of entitlement – 50 or 100 per cent – of the second wife would depend upon the existence of a surviving widow from the first marriage," Justice Brar asserted.

The Bench observed that the case concerned the retirement benefits of Rakesh Kumar, an assistant lineman with Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. who died on May 26, 2013. Half of his pension and gratuity was withheld by PSPCL on the ground that he had two families. The Bench observed that the first wife had separated decades earlier, remarried and neither she nor her children had ever claimed any property or service benefits.

Justice Brar did not find justification for denying the petitioners—children of the second wife—full entitlement. "Neither the first wife nor any of her children ever laid claim to the property of the deceased since his second marriage in 1988 or the financial benefits that accrued upon his death in 2013. Thus, it is evident that the deceased did not have any persisting relationship with his first wife since their separation."

Referring to the principle behind family pensions, Justice Brar asserted: "Family pension is a social security measure intended to provide continuity of livelihood to those dependent upon a deceased government servant, in order to enable them to tide over the financial hardship arising out of such death. In order to claim the same, the dependents must prove that they were dependent on the deceased employee prior to his death."

Admonishing PSPCL for its overly technical approach, Justice Brar added: "There is no palpable reason to deprive the petitioners of the retirement benefits accrued to the deceased. The respondent PSPCL is thoroughly unjustified in withholding half of the benefits in unfounded anticipation of the first wife laying a claim to the same, especially since no such representation in this regard has been moved by her in over two decades. Taking such a hyper-technical approach, devoid of context and nuance, does not further the cause of justice in any way."

The Bench added the marriage between the employee and the petitioners’ mother remained unchallenged. “Even if the same is presumed to be illegal, the fact remains that they cohabited as husband and wife for about 25 years and also raised a family together."

Allowing the petition, Justice Brar directed PSPCL to release the entire retirement and pensionary benefits, including arrears and allowances, within three months

Why the news matters

The ruling makes it clear the rights of a family do not get extinguished merely because an employee had a prior marriage. By clarifying that the second wife and children were entitled to full retirement benefits where the first spouse was no longer dependent, the Court has asserted that entitlement flows from actual dependence and legal heirship, not rigid application of rules or technical objections.