Introduction:

In Vasantha K. and Another v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation & Others [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 376], the Kerala High Court reaffirmed the settled legal position regarding the entitlement of a second wife and children born from a void marriage to the service and pensionary benefits of a deceased government employee. Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen held that while a second wife in a void marriage cannot claim the status of a legally recognised widow and is therefore not entitled to the deceased employee’s retirement benefits or family pension, the children born from such a marriage are legitimate by virtue of Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and are entitled to an equal share in the death-cum-retirement benefits and family pension until they attain majority.

The case arose following the death of a Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) employee while still in service. After his demise, disputes emerged regarding the distribution of his terminal benefits. The deceased’s legally wedded wife and another woman claiming to be his second wife both approached the Corporation seeking release of his service benefits. Since rival claims had been made, KSRTC declined to disburse the benefits and directed the parties to produce a succession certificate from a competent court.

The dispute ultimately reached the Kerala High Court, requiring the Court to determine the legal status of the competing claimants and clarify their entitlement to pensionary and retirement benefits under the applicable law. The case also involved consideration of the rights of children born from the second relationship and a request for compassionate appointment made by the deceased employee’s son.

Arguments of the Parties:

The petitioners, including the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee, challenged the refusal of KSRTC to release the terminal benefits. They contended that there was no dispute regarding the validity of the first marriage and that the first petitioner alone was the lawful widow of the deceased employee. Relying upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Rameshwari Devi v. State of Bihar, the petitioners argued that a second marriage contracted during the subsistence of the first marriage is void under the Hindu Marriage Act. Consequently, the woman claiming to be the second wife could not claim family pension or other service benefits reserved for the legally recognised spouse of a deceased government employee.

The woman claiming to be the second wife asserted that she was also entitled to receive the deceased employee’s service benefits. To strengthen her claim, she pointed out that she had been nominated by the deceased in certain LIC policies, contending that this reflected his intention to treat her as his beneficiary.

KSRTC submitted that conflicting applications had been received from both women claiming entitlement to the terminal benefits. Since rival claims existed, the Corporation had requested production of a succession certificate before releasing the benefits. In the absence of such a certificate, the Corporation maintained that it could not decide the dispute on its own and had therefore withheld disbursement.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen examined the legal heirship certificate and found that it clearly recognised the first petitioner as the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee. The certificate also included the son born from the valid marriage as well as the children born from the second relationship among the legal heirs.

The Court observed that there was no dispute regarding the validity of the first marriage. Since that marriage continued to subsist throughout the lifetime of the deceased employee, any subsequent marriage contracted by him during its subsistence was void under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. As a result, the woman claiming to be the second wife could not acquire the legal status of a widow for the purpose of claiming service and pensionary benefits.

The Court relied upon the Supreme Court’s judgment in Rameshwari Devi v. State of Bihar, which clearly holds that a second wife whose marriage is void because of the subsistence of an earlier valid marriage cannot claim pensionary benefits payable to the widow of a deceased government employee.

However, the Court emphasised that the legal position regarding the children born from such a relationship is entirely different. Referring to Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Justice Eapen observed that children born from a void marriage are treated as legitimate children under the law. Their legitimacy cannot be denied merely because the marriage between their parents is void.

Accordingly, the Court held that the children born from the second relationship are entitled to an equal share in the deceased employee’s death-cum-retirement gratuity and other retirement benefits along with the other legal heirs. The Court further held that such children are also entitled to receive family pension until they attain the age of majority in accordance with the applicable service rules.

At the same time, the Court clarified that the second wife herself is not entitled to receive family pension or any retirement benefits payable exclusively to the legally recognised widow of the deceased employee.

Rejecting the contention based on nomination in LIC policies, the Court observed that nomination by itself cannot confer the legal status of a wife where the marriage itself is void under law.

Consequently, the Kerala High Court directed KSRTC to disburse the death-cum-retirement gratuity, retirement benefits and family pension among all eligible legal heirs strictly in accordance with law. While the first wife was held entitled to the benefits available to the lawful widow, the children born from the second relationship were also declared entitled to their lawful share in the retirement benefits and family pension until attaining majority.

The Court also directed KSRTC to consider the pending application submitted by the deceased employee’s son seeking compassionate appointment within three months. It further clarified that if the son declined to seek compassionate appointment, the children born from the second relationship would be at liberty to apply for such appointment, subject to satisfying the eligibility conditions prescribed under the applicable scheme.

The judgment reiterates the settled legal distinction between the rights of a second wife in a void marriage and the independent statutory rights of children born from such a relationship. While the law does not recognise the second wife as the deceased employee’s lawful widow for service benefits, it fully protects the legitimacy and inheritance rights of the children under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act.