HC Ruling on Void Marriage and Family Pension Entitlement

Case Details: Smt. Pin Maya Kumal vs. Govt. of India - [2025] 178 taxmann.com 487 (Allahabad)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Attau Rahman Masoodi & Subhash Vidyarthi, JJ.
• Ashok Kumar Srivastava for the Petitioner
• S.B. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate/Deputy Solicitor General of India and Varun Pandey, learned counsel for the Respondent

Facts of the Case

In the instant matter, the petitioner claimed to be the second wife of deceased soldier ‘T’ and sought payment of family pension under Section 48 of the Army Act, 1950. The claim was denied on the ground that her name was not entered in the service documents of ‘T’ and that ‘T’ had earlier married ‘D’. Thus, he had contracted a second marriage without obtaining sanction from the competent authority.
On appeal, the Armed Forces Tribunal found that ‘T’ had married the petitioner during the subsistence of his first marriage with ‘D’, without taking permission from the competent authority. As per Regulation 333 of the Defence Service Regulations, this second marriage was void. It was further noted that under Regulation 333, ‘T’, being a Nepalese Gorkha, could remarry only in certain specified circumstances. Since none of those circumstances existed and ‘T’ had not obtained any sanction for his second marriage, the Tribunal held the marriage invalid.

High Court Held

The High Court observed that the petitioner’s marriage with ‘T’ was in contravention of Regulation 333 and therefore conferred no right to claim pensionary benefits arising from the services rendered by ‘T’. Accordingly, the High Court held that there was no illegality in the order rejecting the petitioner’s claim for family pension.

List of Cases Referred To

• Tulsa Devi Nirola v. Radha Nirola 2020 SCC OnLine SC 283 (para 17)
• Vidhyadhari v. Sukhrana Bai (2008) 2 SCC 238 (para 17)
• Rameshwari Devi v. State of Bihar 2000 taxmann.com 3092 (SC) (para 18).