In Absence Of UCC Or Law Banning Polygamy, Valid Muslim Second Marriage Doesn't Bar Family Pension For Widow: Patna HC

The Patna High Court has held that in the absence of any legislation introducing a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) or prohibiting polygamy among Muslims, a valid second marriage under Mohammedan Personal Law cannot, by itself, be a ground to deny family pension to the widow of a deceased Muslim government employee.

Observing that Mohammedan Personal Law continues to govern the marital rights and obligations of Muslims unless expressly modified by legislation, the Court directed the authorities to sanction family pension in favour of the petitioner, the deceased employee's surviving second wife.

Justice Purnendu Singh allowed the writ petition filed by Najma Khatoon , who sought family pension following the death of her husband, a government employee, contending that their marriage was valid under Mohammedan Personal Law.

The Court observed: "In the absence of any legislation introducing a Uniform Civil Code or otherwise prohibiting polygamy among Muslims at the national level or by the State Government, the Mohammedan Personal Law continues to govern the marital rights and obligations of Muslims."

It further held: "Consequently, the validity of a marriage contracted by a Muslim male has to be examined with reference to the applicable personal law, subject to any valid statutory restriction governing the service conditions of a Government servant."

What are the facts of the case?

The petitioner sought directions for grant of family pension after her husband's death on October 14, 2024. She relied on the Bihar Finance Department's Resolution dated June 27, 2011, contending that it clarifies that surviving widows of a deceased Muslim government employee whose marriages are valid under Mohammedan Personal Law are entitled to family pension in equal proportion.

She further submitted that during his lifetime, the deceased employee had requested the authorities to substitute her name in the Pension Payment Order after the death of his first wife. According to her, the authorities never disputed the existence of that communication even as they opposed her claim.

The State, while not disputing that Mohammedan Personal Law continues to govern marriage and family relations in the absence of legislation introducing a Uniform Civil Code or prohibiting polygamy, argued that Rule 23 of the Bihar Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1976 required a government servant to obtain prior permission before contracting a second marriage, even where such marriage was otherwise permissible under personal law.

The Accountant General further contended that the benefit of the 2011 Resolution was available only where the second marriage had been contracted with prior government permission and maintained that recognition of the petitioner's entitlement fell within the domain of the Pension Sanctioning Authority.

What did the Court observe?

Examining the constitutional and statutory framework, the Court observed that Article 44, which envisages a Uniform Civil Code, is a Directive Principle of State Policy, and that no legislation has yet been enacted at the national level to abolish polygamy among Muslims.

It added that, in such circumstances, the issue presently remains within the domain of legislative policy rather than judicial legislation.

The Court further observed that personal laws continue to regulate matters relating to marriage, divorce and family relations unless expressly modified or abrogated by competent legislation.

It noted that the Constitution, while aspiring to a Uniform Civil Code, has not, by itself, abrogated the personal laws governing different religious communities.

Referring to Rule 23 of the Bihar Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1976, the Court noted that while the Rule restricts a government servant from contracting a second marriage during the subsistence of the first, it expressly carves out an exception where such marriage is permissible under the applicable personal law, subject to permission of the Government.

It further observed that under Mohammedan Personal Law, a Muslim male is legally permitted to contract up to four marriages during the lifetime of his first wife and is generally not liable for the offence of bigamy because his personal law recognises polygamy.

The Bench also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Rameshwari Devi v. State of Bihar, observing that a government servant may contract a second marriage where such marriage is permissible under the applicable personal law, although the validity of such marriage may still have implications under the governing service rules.

Significantly, the Court found that the State had not specifically denied the petitioner's entitlement under the Bihar Finance Department's 2011 Resolution.

Holding that the Resolution is clarificatory in nature and has neither been withdrawn nor superseded, the Court observed that it operates retrospectively and, therefore, could not be ignored while considering the petitioner's claim for family pension.

Accordingly, the Court directed the Civil Surgeon, Lakhisarai, to take all necessary steps to facilitate sanction of family pension in favour of the petitioner. It further directed the Accountant General to issue the Pension Payment Order immediately upon receipt of the requisite documents.

The Court also clarified that if the Civil Surgeon delayed sanction of the pension beyond two weeks for reasons not in accordance with law, the petitioner would be at liberty to initiate appropriate legal proceedings.

Case title: Najma Khatoon v. The State of Bihar And Ors

Date of Judgment: July 21, 2026

Bench: Justice Purnendu Singh