Is Nata Vivah A Legal Marriage? Rajasthan High Court Grants Family Pension To Widow

Nata Vivah is valid under the Hindu Marriage Act. Widow petitioner wins family pension despite no nomination in service records. Husband's testimony admitting petitioner as his wife in the family court proved conclusive. Is Nata Vivah valid under the law? During a recent hearing regarding family pension, the Rajasthan High Court judge, Justice Ashok Kumar Jain, noted that Nata Vivah is a practice followed in rural Rajasthan where a woman, after the separation or death of her husband, enters into a contractual type of marital relation with a man. When this practice is followed with the customary celebrations and rights of the parties’ community, these are accepted under law, under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The court ruled that a woman in a “nata” relationship is entitled to her husband’s family pension even if her name is not mentioned in the service records.

Case Background

The petitioner (Ram Pyari Suman) is the second wife of her husband (Puran Lal Saini), a government servant. Notably, her husband married her after his first wife died. Petitioner married him in accordance with the Nata Vivah practices. A daughter was born out of wedlock.

However, due to some disputes later, she filed for maintenance, where the Family Court, Kota, granted her petition and ordered her husband to pay her monthly maintenance. After some time, she filed for enhancement of maintenance, and the husband appeared as a witness and indicated that he considered her his wife.  

He died on December 20, 2020. After his death, the petitioner applied for his family pension but was denied it for the reason that her husband had not nominated her, and her name is not in the service records.

Arguments

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the petitioner was legally wedded second wife, and they have a daughter. In the maintenance enhancement, the husband also acknowledged that she is his wife, so it is wrong to say that the marriage is not valid. The counsel further argued that under Rule 66 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, even if a wife’s name is not nominated as a family member or successor, she is entitled to benefits if she is not legally divorced.  

The respondents’ counsel contended that the wife has not been nominated in the records, so she is not entitled to a family pension. Besides, the Nata Vivah is only a contractual relation and cannot be termed as Marriage, so she is not entitled to the family pension.  

Court Observation

The court noted that the husband had two sons from his first wife, and both are married now. The court observed the husband’s testimony in the family court as “conclusive”. It noted, “The evidence clearly indicates that Puran Lal Saini has termed the present petitioner, Smt. Ram Pyari, as his wife, admitted that a daughter was born out of wedlock. The evidence of the Government servant is admissible, and it is part of a judgment, thus can be read as conclusive to decide the controversy raised in the current petition. There is no other material on record to rebut the claim of the petitioner.”  

It noted that the husband admitted the petitioner as his wife, albeit his second wife. As the petitioner also mentioned herself as Nata Patni in the petition, the court noted and highlighted  that Nata Vivah is “considered as a form of marriage in rural areas of Rajasthan.”  

Referring to the previous judgments, the court noted that service benefits belong to the legal spouse even if their nomination is not updated in the records.

Court Judgment

The court allowed the petition and directed the state respondents to treat the petitioner as the deceased employee’s legally wedded wife and rightful beneficiary. It ordered the respondents to release her family pension as per Rule 66 of the Rules of 1996.