Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Family Pension Despite Void Marriage: Illegality Is Not Immorality

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has granted family pension to a woman despite her marriage being held void under Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In Umawati v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board (LPA No. 545 of 2025), decided on 25 April 2026, the Division Bench held that although the marriage was illegal, it could not be treated as immoral, and the denial of pension on this ground would be unjust.

Background

The appellant Umawati had solemnised marriage with the deceased employee in 1994, after obtaining a customary divorce from her previous husband. An affidavit dated 6 May 1994 sworn by the deceased and a copy of the Parivar Register were placed on record to establish the marriage. After the death of the employee, Umawati claimed family pension, which was denied by the employer on the ground that the marriage was void under the Hindu Marriage Act as her previous marriage had not been dissolved by a court decree.

A Single Judge had dismissed her claim, upholding the employer's position. Umawati filed an intra-court appeal before the Division Bench.

Division Bench Ruling

The Division Bench set aside the Single Judge's order and directed the grant of family pension to Umawati. The Court drew a critical distinction between illegality and immorality, holding that a marriage may be void under the Hindu Marriage Act on technical grounds — such as the subsistence of a prior marriage — without being immoral in the social or ethical sense. The appellant had lived with the deceased as his wife for a significant period, and the relationship was acknowledged within the community.

The Court emphasised social justice and economic empowerment of women as guiding principles. Denying pension to a woman who had lived as the wife of the deceased for decades, solely because of a technical defect in the marriage, would defeat the purpose of pension legislation, which is to provide economic security to the family of the deceased employee.

Legal Implications

This judgment is significant for its articulation of the distinction between legal validity and moral legitimacy in the context of matrimonial relationships. It aligns with a growing body of jurisprudence that recognises the rights of women in long-term cohabitation arrangements, even where the marriage does not satisfy the formal requirements of personal law.

For employers and pension administrators, the ruling serves as a caution against applying rigid technical standards to deny pension claims without considering the equitable dimensions of the case. The purpose of family pension is to prevent economic destitution of the dependent family, and this purpose must inform the interpretation of eligibility criteria.