First legally wedded wife is entitled to entire family pension during her lifetime.

Late Vinod Kumar, an MTS under the Defence Research and Development Organisation, died in service on 24 April 2021.

The applicant, Smt. Sarla Devi, claimed to be his first and legally wedded wife and sought family pension and terminal benefits.

Respondent No. 4, Neha Verma, claimed to be the deceased employee’s daughter through his alleged second wife, Smt. Sushila Devi, and instituted Succession Case No. 226/2021 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Agra.

Pursuant to the High Court’s directions, the respondents passed an order dated 28 March 2025 granting the applicant 50% of the family pension, withholding the remaining 50% until the succession case was decided, and directing processing of various terminal benefits.

Certain terminal benefits were subsequently paid to the applicant, while the remaining family pension and DCRG were withheld pending determination of the competing claims.

Whether the respondents could withhold 50% of the applicant’s family pension merely because Respondent No. 4 had raised a competing claim as the daughter of the deceased employee through an alleged second marriage and had instituted succession proceedings?

Whether the remaining terminal benefits, including DCRG, could be released to the applicant while Succession Case No. 226/2021 remained pending?

Whether children born from the deceased employee’s alleged second marriage were entitled to claim their lawful share in the post-retiral benefits?

The Tribunal applied the applicable pension rules governing family pension and post-retiral benefits, holding that the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee was entitled to family pension during her lifetime.

Relying on Rameshwari Devi v. State of Bihar & Others, (2000) 2 SCC 431, it held that a second marriage contracted during the subsistence of the first marriage under Hindu law is void and does not confer the status of a legally wedded wife upon the second spouse; however, children born from such relationship are entitled to the legal benefits available to them and enjoy a presumption of legitimacy.

The Tribunal also relied on Chandra Kali v. State of U.P. & Others, Writ-A No. 3288 of 2017, decided on 31 July 2019, for the principle that a second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage is void.

Where competing claims to terminal benefits remain pending before a competent civil court, disbursement of the disputed benefits is to be governed by the order passed in the succession proceedings.

The Tribunal found it undisputed that Sarla Devi was the first legally wedded wife of Late Vinod Kumar.

Respondent No. 4’s own pleading that the deceased had married her mother with the applicant’s consent indicated that the first marriage was subsisting and had not been dissolved.

Applying Rameshwari Devi and Chandra Kali, the Tribunal held that the alleged second wife could not acquire the status of a legally wedded wife and that Respondent No. 4 could not claim family pension in that capacity.

Consequently, the respondents had no lawful basis to withhold 50% of the applicant’s family pension solely on account of the competing claim.

However, the Tribunal distinguished family pension from terminal benefits.

Since children born from the alleged second marriage could assert their lawful share in the deceased employee’s post-retiral benefits and the succession case was pending, the Tribunal declined to direct release of the disputed terminal benefits, including DCRG, until the competent civil court determined the parties’ entitlements.

The Tribunal set aside the order dated 28 March 2025 to the extent that it withheld 50% of the family pension and directed the respondents to release the withheld 50% to Smt. Sarla Devi, together with arrears, thereby granting her the entire family pension during her lifetime.

The payment was directed to be completed within three months of receipt of the certified copy of the order; failing that, the delayed payment would carry interest at the applicable GPF rate.

No specific direction was issued for release of the remaining terminal benefits or DCRG, as those claims were to be governed by the outcome of Succession Case No. 226/2021.

There was no order as to costs, and all connected miscellaneous applications were disposed of.