A second marriage contracted during the subsistence of a first marriage is void and disentitles the spouse to family pension.

The Petitioner’s husband, Late Sep Udey Singh, was enrolled in the Indian Army in 1963 and discharged in 1979

During the subsistence of his first marriage to Smt. Satwati Devi, he married the Petitioner (Vidya Devi)

The husband’s request to change his Next of Kin (NOK) to the Petitioner’s name was rejected by the authorities in 2011 on the ground that contracting a second marriage while the first spouse is alive is an offence under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Following the husband's death on 27.09.2011, the first wife claimed the family pension until her own demise on 13.05.2012

The Petitioner’s claim for family pension was rejected by the respondents and subsequently by the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) on the grounds that her marriage was void

1. Whether a second wife, whose marriage was solemnized during the subsistence of a prior legal marriage, is entitled to family pension under the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961

2. Whether the death of the first wife subsequent to the death of the husband validates the second marriage for the purpose of claiming pensionary benefits

The court applied Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which mandates that neither party have a spouse living at the time of marriage, read with Section 11, which renders any bigamous marriage void

The court further applied the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, which restricts family pension eligibility to a "lawfully married" widow

It relied on the precedent Raj Kumari v. Krishan, which held that pension is only available to a legally wedded wife

It distinguished Shriramabai v. The Captain, Record Officer, noting that a presumption of marriage only arises from long cohabitation after a legal impediment (like a prior marriage) is removed via divorce or death during the husband's lifetime

The Court reasoned that since the husband’s first marriage to Smt. Satwati Devi was never legally dissolved during his lifetime, the Petitioner’s marriage remained void ab initio under the Hindu Marriage Act

The Court rejected the Petitioner's argument that the first wife’s death in 2012 shifted the right to pension to her, noting that eligibility is determined by the status of the marriage at the time of the husband's death in 2011

At the time of the husband's demise, Satwati Devi was the sole "lawfully married" widow

The Court distinguished the Shriramabai case because, unlike that case where a legal divorce had occurred during the husband's lifetime allowing for a presumption of marriage with the second partner, the husband in this case remained legally married to his first wife until his death

The Court affirmed the AFT's order and the respondents' decision, concluding that a void marriage does not grant the status of a 'widow' for the purposes of the Army Pension Regulations