AFT Grants Family Pension to Army Havildar Jagat Singh’s Second Wife Despite Void Marriage Finding
The Chandigarh Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal has ordered the Union government to pay ordinary family pension to Satnam Kaur, the second wife of late Army Havildar Jagat Singh, even while holding that their marriage was void under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The ruling came in a case that turned on the peculiar facts of long cohabitation, the first wife’s consent, and entries in Army records that recognised the family arrangement.
A Bench of Justice Umesh Chandra Sharma, Judicial Member, and Air Marshal Manavendra Singh, Administrative Member, passed the order on 3 September 2026. The matter was heard at Chandimandir in Panchkula in an application filed by Satnam Kaur against the Union of India and others.
The dispute arose from the marital and service history of Jagat Singh, who married Mohinder Kaur on 1 January 1940 and was enrolled in the Indian Army on 9 July 1940. He served until 9 July 1961 and then drew service pension. The first marriage remained without children.
According to the record before the Tribunal, Jagat Singh contracted a second marriage with Satnam Kaur on 13 April 1970, while Mohinder Kaur was still alive. The Tribunal noted that this step was taken with the first wife’s consent. In affidavits dated 30 March 1970, Jagat Singh and Mohinder Kaur stated that the first marriage had remained childless and that Mohinder Kaur had willingly permitted him to marry again in the hope of having a child. Jagat Singh also gave an undertaking that he would maintain his first wife for the rest of her life.
After the second marriage, Satnam Kaur and Jagat Singh lived together as husband and wife. Their daughter, Sukhwinder Kaur, was born from the relationship. The Tribunal also noted that the names of Mohinder Kaur, Satnam Kaur and Sukhwinder Kaur were entered in Jagat Singh’s Army service documents. Additional documents, including a ration card and a voter identity card, were also relied upon in support of Satnam Kaur’s claim.
Jagat Singh died on 13 February 1998. Following his death, family pension was sanctioned to Mohinder Kaur from 14 February 1998. That pension stopped after Mohinder Kaur died on 9 February 2017. Satnam Kaur then sought ordinary family pension from 10 February 2017, contending that she was entitled to receive it after the death of the first wife.
The authorities rejected her request by a letter dated 15 September 2018. They cited the destruction of the old service records after the prescribed retention period and referred to Army regulations dealing with plural marriages, including Rule 333(A) of the Regulations for the Army, read with the Hindu Marriage Act. The Centre’s stand before the Tribunal was that the second marriage was null and void and could not form the basis of a pension claim.
While the Bench accepted that the marriage solemnised during the lifetime of the first wife was void under Sections 5, 7 and 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, it held that the pension issue had to be examined separately. The Tribunal distinguished between the validity of the marriage in law and the consequences flowing from the long-standing domestic arrangement that followed.
In reaching that view, the Bench relied on Supreme Court precedent, including the 2023 decision in Smt. Shiramabai & Ors. v. The Captain, Record Officer and Another. It observed that continuous cohabitation as husband and wife over a long period can create a presumption in favour of marriage, though that presumption can be rebutted. The burden on the person denying such a relationship is heavy.
Applying that principle to the present case, the Tribunal found the surrounding circumstances significant. It pointed to the first wife’s consent, the continued cohabitation after 13 April 1970, the birth of a daughter, and the official Army records reflecting the family members. The respondents, the Bench said, did not produce any document to dislodge those facts.
The Bench stated that although the second marriage may be legally void, cohabitation in such circumstances could still justify pensionary relief. In its words, “on account of cohabitation the second wife will be entitled to maintenance and other pensionary benefits at least after the death of the first wife or after the date of divorce between the first wife and the individual.”
On that basis, the Tribunal quashed the rejection letter dated 15 September 2018 and directed the authorities to grant Satnam Kaur ordinary family pension with effect from 10 February 2017. It also ordered consequential benefits and interest at 6 per cent per annum. The payment is to be made within three months of receipt of the certified order. If the authorities fail to comply within that period, the interest rate will increase to 8 per cent per annum.
The order brings to a close an eight-year legal battle that began with the pension rejection in 2018. The Bench made clear that its relief was confined to the specific facts proved before it — consent, prolonged cohabitation and documentary recognition in Army records — and did not amount to a blanket approval of second marriages contracted during the subsistence of the first. The ruling also stands against the backdrop of other recent cases in which courts have taken a stricter view of void second marriages under Army pension rules.
