Why Punjab and Haryana High Court said widows who marry their brother-in-law won’t lose family pension

The order added that the right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India is not limited to a mere animal-like existence, but includes the right to live a dignified, meaningful life.

“It must be understood that karewa marriages, i.e., remarriage of a widow to the brother of her deceased husband, serve a social purpose,” the court stated.

Underscoring its significance, the order said that since the matrimonial family is called upon to shoulder the moral responsibility of their well-being, this custom also assists in the social and financial rehabilitation of widows and their children.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar was hearing three petitions filed by the widows of the deceased government employees.

The court noted that oftentimes, retirement benefits are the only source of income for many families, especially when the primary breadwinner has passed away, and the kin of the retired/deceased employees not only rely on the same for fiscal security but also for their very survival.

Background

• The court was hearing three separate petitions.
• In Paramjit Kaur v. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, the petitioner’s family pension was stopped in 2022 after the department discovered her karewa marriage through an Aadhaar card update.
• In Darshana Devi v. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited, the pension was transferred to her children and eventually stopped when they aged out, despite her continued residence within the deceased husband’s family.
• In Sharmila Devi v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, the petitioner was denied restoration of pension after it was briefly sanctioned in her daughter’s name.
• In all cases, the respondent-employers argued that under the Punjab Civil Service Rules and Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, a widow’s entitlement to a pension ends upon her remarriage.
• The state submitted that a karewa marriage is a valid marriage under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Hence, the petitioner cannot claim family pension upon her remarriage under Sub Rule 10(B) (i)(a) of Rule 8 of the Haryana Civil Services (Pensions) Rules, 2016.

Purpose of ‘karewa’ marriage

• It must be understood that karewa marriages serve a social purpose. The customary practice, which is also recognised in terms of Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, aids in providing patronage to minor children, preserving the dignity of widows, and ensuring continuity of care for aged parents.
• Upon such remarriage, the paternity of the children is also established from within the blood relatives, who are more likely to raise them with genuine care and affection.
• The ties between the widow, her children, and the matrimonial family are not severed by the death of her first husband.
• Service rules often proscribe a remarried widow from claiming family pension, but the legislative intent behind the same is not punitive but redistributive.
• The assumption at work therein is that her new family now bears the responsibility for her financial and social well-being, and thus, she is no longer dependent on the estate of her deceased first husband.
• The benefits are redirected to the children and parents of the deceased employee, as financial support must follow actual vulnerability.
• The intention behind disentitling the widow from family pension upon remarriage was to ensure that the same is not utilised for the sake of her new matrimonial family.

• Upon karewa marriage, the widow stays on as a member of the same family; thus, they ought not to be punished merely for the act of remarriage when their subsequent marriage has not resulted in any unjust enrichment at the cost of other dependents of their respective deceased first husbands.
• The right to family pension is not vested in a widow alone but typically flows to all immediate dependents of a deceased employee.
• As such, the dependents, when possible, must be allowed to be treated as a unit, as their lives are not untethered from each other.
• Disqualifying the petitioner from availing family pension would also jeopardise the rights of any surviving dependents of her deceased first husband.
• The state, being a model employer, must stay alive to the social realities and endeavour to balance equity with the statutory mandate, particularly when it is clear that a custom such as karewa marriage is in harmony with the settled law.

Findings

• The petitioners had solemnised karewa marriages upon the death of their respective husbands.
• Citing the said remarriage, their family pension was discontinued by their respective respondent-employers.
• It was also observed in D K Nakara and others v. Union of India that pension and retiral benefits are not bounty by nature but, in fact, are akin to wages, relied upon by the pensioner and his family for assistance.
• The entitlement to a dignified and secure life, as illustrated in D K Nakara, must be applied with greater force to the family pension, as the same is only granted when an earning member of the family passes away, leaving his dependents at risk for destitution.
• The Supreme Court in Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi has opined that any act offending human dignity constitutes a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
• It appears that the petitioners have continued to live a communal life with their respective matrimonial families, i.e. family of the deceased, even after the solemnisation of their respective karewa marriages.
• It cannot be assumed that their connection with the family of the deceased has been severed.
• Upon such remarriage, there has been no fragmentation of the financial responsibilities as the children remain under the same guardianship structure and the aged parents reside in the same household.
• A strict and mechanical disqualification would amount to overlooking social reality to make good an administrative technicality, thereby defeating the beneficial nature of the provisions for family pension.