Where multiple widows survive, family pension is governed by pension rules, not succession certificates.

Late Aninda Kumar Mitra married respondent no. 6 in 2000. An ex parte divorce decree was passed in his favour on 26 May 2003. Respondent no. 6 applied under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set it aside; the decree was eventually set aside on 7 March 2013, and the divorce suit was dismissed in default on 20 January 2017.

In the intervening period, on 12 February 2006, the deceased married applicant no. 1. After his death, applicant no. 1 and respondent no. 6 made competing claims for family pension, terminal benefits and compassionate appointment. The Railway authorities required them to obtain a succession certificate, prompting this application

Whether applicant no. 1’s 2006 marriage was void because the ex parte divorce decree underlying it was later set aside

Whether a succession certificate could be required before the authorities considered the rival claims for family pension, compassionate appointment and terminal benefits

Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 governs when a divorced person may remarry.

Relying on Krishnaveni Rai v. Pankaj Rai, Anurag Mittal v. Shaily Mishra Mittal and Smt. Lila Gupta v. Laxmi Narayan, the Tribunal stated that a marriage contracted while a divorce decree is operative is not necessarily void merely because the decree is later set aside; statutory incapacity does not, without an express provision declaring nullity, itself render a marriage void

The Tribunal also referred to Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Bharatha Matha v. R. Vijaya Renganathan concerning the statutory treatment of children of void marriages

Rule 50(8)(c) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 2026 provides for equal shares of family pension where a deceased railway servant is survived by more than one widow

The Tribunal found that applicant no. 1 married the deceased while the 2003 divorce decree remained operative and no stay had been granted; the decree was set aside only in 2013. Applying the principles in Krishnaveni Rai and Lila Gupta, it held that the later setting aside of the decree did not, on these facts, make applicant no. 1’s marriage void. The subsequent dismissal of the divorce suit meant respondent no. 6’s marriage also continued to subsist, leaving both women as claimants to post-death benefits

Because Rule 50(8)(c) specifically addresses family pension where there is more than one surviving widow, the authorities had to determine that claim under the Rule rather than insist on a succession certificate. The Tribunal likewise held that eligible children of either marriage could be considered for compassionate appointment; however, it left intact the requirement of an appropriate succession certificate for release of terminal and other retiral benefits

The impugned orders were set aside insofar as they required a succession certificate as a precondition to considering family pension or compassionate appointment. The authorities were directed to decide the competing family-pension claims under Rule 50(8)(c) and to consider any eligible child of either marriage for compassionate appointment under the applicable rules. The requirement for a succession certificate in relation to terminal/retiral benefits was not disturbed. No order as to costs