HC dismisses plea of ‘widow’ for pension after ‘karewa’ marriage

HC dismisses plea of ‘widow’ for pension after ‘karewa’ marriage

But Also Sets Aside Order Seeking Recovery Of Pension From Petitioner

Ajay.Sura@timesgroup.com

Chandigarh:  06.07.2020

The Punjab and Haryana high court has made it clear that a woman, who had undergone “karewa” marriage with her brother-in-law on demise of her husband, would not be entitled to social security pension given to her as a widow.HC has passed these orders while dismissing the argument of a woman from Haryana who wanted continuation of widow pension arguing that a “karewa” marriage “does not translate to remarriage”.

“The petitioner is not eligible to draw pension under the Haryana Pension to Widows and Destitute Women Scheme Rules, 1988-1989 having solemnised ‘karewa’ marriage with her brotherin-law. Argument raised by the counsel for the petitioner that ‘karewa’ marriage is, in fact, not a marriage, is noticed only to be rejected,” HC has held.

HC, however, has set-aside the order of Haryana government seeking recovery of widow pension drawn by the petitioner even after “karewa” marriage.

Justice Lisa Gill passed these orders while dismissing a petition filed by Suman, a resident of Kaithal district. The petitioner, who claimed to be poor, sought pension under the Widow Pension Scheme — one of the social security schemes of Haryana. Her husband, who was a labourer by profession, died in April 2007. Later, she performed ‘karewa’ with her brother-in-law and even has a daughter now.

According to the petitioner, her father-in-law had some dispute with a villager, who complained to the authorities about illegal withdrawal of pension by her. Soon after, her pension was stopped and she was directed to deposit around Rs 1.82 lakh taken by her in the form of widow pension.

Challenging the recovery orders, she approached the HC. Her counsel argued that there is no bar in the scheme for release of pension to a widow who remarries subsequently and in any case, a ‘karewa’ marriage does not translate to remarriage.

Contesting her plea, the Haryana government counsel submitted that the scheme is meant to help a widow to tide over the difficult circumstances that may arise on the death of her husband and help her sustain herself from her own resources. She, however, disqualified to get pension after re-marriage, the state had argued.

After hearing the parties, HC dismissed her petition but restrained state government from making any recovery from her.

Haryana government submitted that the scheme is meant to help widows to tide over the difficult circumstances, but the petitioner is disqualified to get pension after re-marriage