A second marriage during a subsisting valid marriage confers no widow status for family pension.

The petitioner’s husband, E. Chandran, retired from service with the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) in 2016 and died in 2019 while receiving pension.

The petitioner sought family pension, but LIC rejected her request because the second respondent also claimed to be Chandran’s wife and directed the petitioner to obtain a succession certificate.

The petitioner relied on evidence of her marriage to Chandran on 18 April 1982, including a legal heirship certificate. The second respondent claimed to have married him on 26 August 1990.

The petitioner challenged LIC’s rejection by writ petition.

Whether the second respondent’s alleged marriage to Chandran, contracted while his marriage to the petitioner subsisted, entitled her to be treated as a widow for family-pension purposes

Whether LIC could require the petitioner to obtain a succession certificate before disbursing family pension in the circumstances

Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 requires that neither party to a Hindu marriage have a living spouse at the time of the marriage; a marriage contracted in breach of that condition is void under Section 11.

The court also considered Rule 40(5)(a) of the LIC of India (Staff) Pension Rules, 1995, which LIC relied on for its position that pension is payable in equal shares where there are two widows.

It relied on the principles in W.A. No. 1072 of 2022 and W.A. No. 977 of 2017 that a person whose second marriage is void cannot claim the status of a widow for the purpose in question.

The court found that the petitioner’s marriage to Chandran took place in 1982 and that the second respondent’s alleged marriage took place in 1990, with no claim that the first marriage had been dissolved by divorce.

Because the petitioner’s marriage was subsisting, the later marriage was void under Sections 5(i) and 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The second respondent therefore could not be treated as a legally wedded wife or widow for family-pension purposes, and LIC’s reliance on the rule concerning two widows did not justify requiring the petitioner to obtain a succession certificate.

It quashed LIC’s order dated 20 March 2024 and directed LIC to pay the petitioner’s pension arrears within eight weeks of receiving the order and to continue regular pension payments thereafter.

The writ petition was allowed, the connected miscellaneous petition was closed, and no costs were awarded.