In a significant ruling that prioritizes long-standing relationships over technicalities, the Telangana High Court has firmly upheld a widow's right to family pension, dismissing the state government's attempt to deny her the benefit. The court underscored that the woman and the deceased government employee had lived as husband and wife for over four and a half decades.
Court Rejects State's Bigamy Argument, Highlights Service Record
The legal battle centered on G Vijaya Lakshmi, the widow of G Muralidhar Rao, a prohibition and excise inspector who passed away in December 2019. The state's Prohibition and Excise Department had appealed against a single judge's order directing it to release the family pension to her. The department's primary argument was that Vijaya Lakshmi was Rao's second wife, making their marriage void under the Hindu Marriage Act and a violation of government conduct rules for employees.
However, a division bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G M Mohiuddin found the state's stance deeply flawed. The bench delivered the judgment on Tuesday, December 4, 2025. The judges placed paramount importance on the couple's life together and official documentation.
The court observed that Rao and Vijaya Lakshmi "lived together as husband and wife for over 45 years and had three children," firmly noting the legal principle that "long cohabitation leads to presumption of marriage." Crucially, the bench pointed out that Rao's service records consistently named G Vijaya Lakshmi as his wife and nominee for pension throughout his entire career.
Department's Inaction During Employee's Lifetime Proves Critical
The judgment highlighted a critical failure on the part of the authorities. The department had raised no objections and took no disciplinary action against Rao for alleged bigamy during his lifetime. This inaction significantly weakened the state's case when it later sought to deny his widow her rightful dues.
Furthermore, the court dismissed the department's reliance on a 2006 criminal case filed by Rao's first wife, which alleged cruelty and bigamy. The bench clarified that findings in a criminal court are "not a final and binding declaration of the marital status, for all purposes, particularly for the determination of entitlement under the Pension Rules." The judges stressed that the standard of proof in criminal proceedings is different from that in civil matters like pension claims.
State Failed to Conclusively Prove Marriage Was Void
The high court ruled that executive circulars denying pension to a second wife were irrelevant in this case because the state had failed to conclusively establish that Vijaya Lakshmi was indeed a legally invalid second wife. No civil court had made a definitive declaration on the marital status.
"The appellants have failed to produce any conclusive evidence to prove that the respondent is not the legally wedded wife of the employee. The appellants have also failed to conclusively establish that the marriage of the respondent with the employee was void," the judgment stated.
Concluding that the appeal was "devoid of merits," the bench found no error in the single judge's initial order. The Telangana High Court dismissed the state's appeal and ordered the authorities to release the family pension to widow G Vijaya Lakshmi without further delay. This ruling reinforces the legal weight of long-term cohabitation and protects the rights of surviving partners against posthumous bureaucratic challenges.
