No valid marriage? Can’t deny pension: Himachal Pradesh High Court grants benefit to woman citing long cohabitation

“The long cohabitation inter se the parties, the entry of the name of the appellant in the service book/pension record of the deceased (though subsequently withdrawn), the fact that late employee had two sons and two daughters from his previous marriage, all of whom have attained majority and none of whom is claiming any right over the family pension…when considered with relevant factors like economic empowerment, social justice, dignity of the individual requires this court to be sensitive to and positively inclined towards the weaker party,” the order read. 

The court held that the woman, who is “financially weak and economically dependent”, is entitled to the grant of family pension in respect of the late employee.

‘Illegal, not immoral’

• The Himachal Pradesh High Court noted that the woman’s marriage with the employee had earlier been held to be a nullity by the family court in proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act.
• The ground for invalidity was that her previous marriage was still subsisting when she entered into the relationship with the employee in 1994.
• The court observed that under the Hindu Marriage Act, a bigamous marriage is illegal.
• However, it pointed out that even so, such a marriage is not necessarily “immoral”, and courts have, in similar situations, granted maintenance to financially dependent women.
• The woman who was in a bigamous relationship with the late employee was held not to be immoral. 
• The Himachal Pradesh High Court further pointed out that if a man and a woman cohabit as husband and wife for a long duration, then a presumption under the Evidence Act can be drawn to the effect that they were living together as a consequence of a valid marriage. 

• The court also mentioned that the presumption is rebuttable and can be rebutted by leading unimpeachable evidence. 
• It was added that this burden lies heavily on a party who seeks to question the cohabitation and to deprive the relationship of legal sanctity. 
• The Himachal Pradesh High Court noted that Rule 50(8) of the Central Civil Services (CCS) Pension Rules 2021 provides for family pension to two wives. 
• It was also found that the second wife would not be entitled to a family pension when the first wife is alive. 
• In the present case, however, the wife of the late employee had died before his marriage to the woman. 
• The appeal was allowed, and the April 2025 judgment of the family court was set aside. 

Decades of cohabitation, no legal marriage

The employee retired from the board as a foreman on August 31, 1998, and the woman claimed to have solemnised a marriage with him in 1994, the Himachal Pradesh High Court noted. 

The marriage between the woman and the employee is alleged to have taken place after she had obtained a customary divorce from her earlier husband. 

The woman placed on record an affidavit issued in May 1994 to establish that a marriage was solemnised between her and the late employee. Further, a copy of the parivar register was placed on record. The employee is stated to have died in October 2020, the Himachal Pradesh High Court found.  

Subsequently, a claim for a family pension was made by the woman in April 2023. The civil judge held that the woman had not acquired the status of a wife of the late employee, as the existence of a valid marriage between the parties had not been proved. 

The woman also filed a plea for restitution of conjugal rights in August 2026. Hence, the petition for restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed by the family court, holding that the woman had no locus standi to file the same.