The court affirmed that under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, a second wife is entitled to an equal share of family pension, notwithstanding the void status of her marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act.

ORDER :

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question order dated 29-07-2022 passed by the VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru on I.A.No.II in O.S.No.162 of 2021 directing 50% of pension to be paid to the 1st respondent and her children while not answering the claim of the petitioner.

2. Heard Sri Madhukar Nadig, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Mohammed Mujassim, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri A.Chandrachud, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4.

3. Brief facts that lead the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:-

One R.Ramesh Babu was an employee of the Indian Railways working in the South Western Railways at the office of the Senior Divisional Personnel Manager. During his life time, it appears that he had married the 1st respondent and from the wedlock three children are born – the second and third respondents who are unmarried and the married daughter is not before the Court.

4. It further transpires that on 09-12-1999 R.Ramesh Babu married the petitioner at Tirupathi and from this wedlock a child is born on 18-12-2000. The girl child is now 22 years old. Long after the marriage with the petitioner, R.Ramesh Babu who was working as a Pointsman-I, Traffic Department, South Western Railway dies. He died in harness on 04-05-2021. On 17-05-2021 1st the respondent claiming to be the wife of the deceased R.Ramesh Babu sought settlement of entire dues and family pension apart from seeking compassionate appointment to the 2nd respondent. The 4th respondent under whom the deceased was functioning communicates that settlement of benefits and family pension cannot be finalized on account of a claim by the petitioner who had claimed to be a legally wedded wife. It was advised that settlement can be made only on a declaratory decree from the hands of a competent Court about the status of the parties.

5. After the said communication, respondents 1 to 3 filed a suit for declaration in O.S.No.162 of 2021 before the VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru seeking a declaration that respondent No.1 is the legally wedded wife and respondents 2 and 3 are the children born from the wedlock and are the legal heirs of the deceased/employee. Further declaration was sought that family pension, gratuity and insurance also belong to respondents 1 to 3 and one of them would be entitled to compassionate appointment. Respondents 1 to 3 filed an application before the concerned Court in the said proceedings for release of entire family pension in their favour. The petitioner then files a memo adopting the written statement already filed in the suit to be the objections to the application. The concerned Court by its order dated 29-07-2022, pending disposal of the interlocutory application itself, directs 50% of family pension to be paid to respondents 1 to 3. The petitioner aggrieved by the said order is knocking at the doors of this Court calling in question the order directing 50% of family pension to be paid to respondents 1 to 3, notwithstanding petitioner’s objection.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the petitioner alone is entitled to the entire family pension and ordering release of 50% of family pension in favour of respondents 1 to 3, without considering the right of the petitioner, is on the face of it erroneous.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing respondents 1 to 3 would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that the petitioner is not a legally wedded wife as in terms of Hindu Marriage Act which governs relationship of parties, the petitioner cannot be termed to a legally wedded wife and family pension can be granted only to a legally wedded wife and her children. Therefore, no fault can be found with the order directing 50% of family pension to be released. He would term the petitioner to be a paramour at best and never