Cuttack: In a significant ruling reinforcing the principles of monogamy under Hindu law, the Orissa High Court dismissed an appeal by a woman seeking family pension as the second wife of a deceased government employee.
The division bench of Justices Dixit Krishna Shripad and Chittaranjan Dash held that a second marriage contracted during the subsistence of the first remains void ab initio, even after the first wife’s death, and does not entitle the claimant to pensionary benefits.
The judgment, delivered on January 13, upheld a single judge’s order from July 16, 2025, which had refused to interfere with the School and Mass Education Department’s decision dated November 12, 2021, rejecting the woman’s claim. The department had denied the pension on grounds that her marriage to the deceased employee was bigamous, as it occurred while he was still married to his first wife.
The bench observed that the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, has established monogamy as the “thumb rule with no exception whatsoever” for Hindus. “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 stated.
It noted that it is punishable under Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Rejecting the appellant’s argument that the second marriage was justified due to the first wife’s childlessness, the bench described the submission as “too dangerous to be accepted.” It emphasised that the Act does not recognise childlessness as a justifiable ground for entering into a second marriage while the first is subsisting.
The court further clarified that the use of the term “wives” in pension rules does not permit polygamy or polyandry. Such rules cannot be interpreted to override the legislative intent of statutes like the Hindu Marriage Act and provisions criminalising bigamy under the Indian Penal Code.
Granting pension to the “so-called second wife” would amount to “placing premium on illegality,” the bench remarked.
