4 min readDec 4, 2025 05:38 PM IST
First published on: Dec 4, 2025 at 05:38 PM IST
The Telangana High Court on Tuesday upheld a pension claim made by the widow of an employee of the Prohibition and Excise Department and dismissed the department’s appeal to overturn an earlier order of the court that had directed it to release the family pension to the woman.
The division bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G M Mohiuddin was dealing with a core dispute that centered on the state’s refusal to grant the pension, claiming that the widow, G Vijaya Lakshmi, was the second wife of G Muralidhar Rao, who had worked as a prohibition and excise inspector and died in December 2019.
The state argued that their marriage was void under the Hindu Marriage Act and in violation of government employees’ conduct rules.
Delivering strong remarks against the department, the bench observed that Rao and Vijaya Lakshmi “lived together as husband and wife for over 45 years and had three children”, noting that “long cohabitation leads to presumption of marriage.”
The bench found the department’s arguments to be completely misplaced, and placed paramount importance on the official service records and the long duration of the relationship. The court noted that Rao’s service records consistently named G Vijaya Lakshmi as his wife and nominee for the pension “right from the beginning of the service of the employee throughout his service”. Furthermore, the department had raised no objection and took no disciplinary action against Rao for alleged bigamy during his lifetime.
‘Standard of proof in a criminal court is different’
The court dismissed the department’s reliance on observations made in a 2006 case alleging cruelty and bigamy filed against Rao by his first wife, stating that such criminal court findings were “not a final and binding declaration of the marital status, for all purposes, particularly for the determination of entitlement under the Pension Rules”.
The judges stressed that the “standard of proof in a criminal court is different from that of a civil matter”. They stated, “The contemporaneous and determinative piece of evidence is the service record of the employee, which clearly shows the respondent as wife of the employee and the nominee for the purpose of pension.”
The high court found that executive circulars and memos that deny the pension to a second wife have no relevance to the facts of the present case, when the status of the widow being the second wife is not conclusively established by any civil court.
“The appellants have failed to produce any conclusive evidence to prove that the respondent is not the legally wedded wife of the employee. The appellants have also failed to conclusively establish that the marriage of the respondent with the employee was void,” the judgment read.
The judgment concluded that the state had failed to make out any case warranting the interference of the court in the appeal. The court found no error in the single judge’s initial order and ruled that the appeal “is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed”.
The court ordered the state to release the family pension to the widow, Vijaya Lakshmi.
The state argued that their marriage was void under the Hindu Marriage Act and in violation of government employees' conduct rules. (Image: Express Photo) 
Share
