How have courts interpreted a provision in the California Fire and Police Charter affecting pensions for the widow of a retired fire and police officer?

For example, in Henry v. City of Los Angeles, supra, a charter amendment modified a provision for widows' pensions. Prior to the amendment the charter provided that no widow of a retired fire or police department employee should receive a pension unless she had been married to the deceased employee at least one year prior to the date of his death. The amendment changed the charter to provide that no widow should be entitled to a pension unless she had been married to the deceased employee at least one year prior to the date of his retirement. It was held that the modification was unreasonable, and thus unconstitutional, because it cut off a vested contractual right of those employees who had married, at least one year prior to death, before the date of the amendment. While recognizing that a widow has no vested right in a death benefit before her husband's death, and even though the modification did not reduce the quantum of benefits to the employee, the court nevertheless stated, 'It is quite apparent the benefit to a fireman or policeman of being able to protect his widow with a pension irrespective of when his marriage to her occurred . . . is a substantial benefit which the 1925 amendment sought to curtail very sharply by requiring that [the] pensioner must have been married to such person at least one year prior to his retirement.' (201 Cal.App.2d at pp. 314-315, 20 Cal.Rptr. at p. 449.)