No Law Banning Polygamy Among Muslims; Multiple Widows Of Deceased Employee Entitled To Family Pension Under Bihar Policy: Patna High Court
The Patna High Court has held that, in the absence of any legislation prohibiting polygamy among Muslims, a Muslim widow is entitled to family pension if her marriage with the deceased government employee was valid under Mohammedan Personal Law. The Court also held that the Finance Department's 2011 clarification extending family pension to surviving widows of deceased Muslim government...
The Patna High Court has held that, in the absence of any legislation prohibiting polygamy among Muslims, a Muslim widow is entitled to family pension if her marriage with the deceased government employee was valid under Mohammedan Personal Law. The Court also held that the Finance Department's 2011 clarification extending family pension to surviving widows of deceased Muslim government employees continues to operate and cannot be ignored by the authorities.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Purnendu Singh was hearing a writ petition filed by Najma Khatoon seeking directions to the authorities to sanction family pension following the death of her husband, a government employee, on October 14, 2020.
The petitioner submitted that the Finance Department's Resolution dated June 27, 2011 (Memo No. 1549) clarified that where a deceased Muslim government employee had contracted multiple marriages valid under Mohammedan Personal Law, all surviving widows were entitled to family pension in equal proportion. After the death of the first wife, her husband had requested the authorities to substitute the petitioner's name in the Pension Payment Order and include their younger daughter as the eligible family member. However, despite the request, family pension was not sanctioned in her favour.
It was further argued that the State had not specifically disputed her entitlement under the 2011 Resolution. The petitioner contended that Mohammedan Personal Law permits a Muslim man to contract up to four marriages and, being the only surviving wife of the deceased employee, she was entitled to family pension. She also highlighted her financial hardship, stating that she was responsible for maintaining her unemployed adult children.
The State submitted that Mohammedan Personal Law continues to govern marriage and family relations in the absence of legislation introducing a Uniform Civil Code or prohibiting polygamy among Muslims. However, it argued that Rule 23 of the Bihar Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1976 requires a government servant to obtain prior permission before contracting a second marriage, even where such marriage is permissible under personal law.
The Court observed that although Article 44 of the Constitution envisages a Uniform Civil Code, no legislation has yet been enacted abolishing polygamy among Muslims. It held that personal laws continue to govern marriage and family relations unless expressly modified by legislation. It held:
“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.”
The Bench further held that while Rule 23 regulates the service conduct of government servants, its proviso expressly recognises marriages permitted under the applicable personal law, subject to government permission. It noted that under Mohammedan Personal Law, a Muslim man is legally permitted to contract up to four marriages.
The Court also found that the State had not denied the petitioner's claim in its counter affidavit. It observed that the Finance Department's Resolution dated June 27, 2011, specifically clarified that the earlier notification of September 6, 1996 would not disentitle surviving widows of deceased Muslim government employees from receiving family pension where the marriage was valid under Mohammedan Personal Law.
Holding that the clarificatory resolution remained in force and had not been withdrawn or superseded, the Court directed the Civil Surgeon, Lakhisarai, to take all necessary steps for sanctioning family pension in favour of the petitioner.
Case Title: Najma Khatoon v. State of Bihar
Case No.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5393 of 2026.
Appearance: Mr. Sanjeeb Kumar Sanju, Mr. Sunil Kumar, Mr. Bhaskar Sandilya, and Mr. Ravi Kumar for the Petitioner. Mr. Raj Nandan Prasad and Mr. Vishesh Kumar Singh, AC to the Additional Advocate General, for the Respondents.