A.B. Chaudhari, J.

1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the petitioners. By the present petition, the petitioner-Indian Railways have put to challenge the judgment and order dated 28-1-2014 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Nagpur, in O.A. No. 2094/2006, which made an order for grant of pension to the two widows of the deceased railway employee in equal share. In support of the writ petition, Mr. Lambat, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the tribunal committed error in making the impugned order particularly when the marriage of the second wife/widow of the deceased railway employee was clearly illegal and in violation of section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act being the second marriage during the lifetime of the first wife, who was not divorced. He, therefore, submitted that in the wake of void marriage of the second wife/widow, the tribunal could not have made an order, contrary to the law. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment and order deserves to be set aside.

2. None appears for the respondent, though served.

3. We have perused the impugned order made by the tribunal. We quote paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the judgment of the tribunal, which read as under:

"7. I have gone through the Railway Services Pension Rules, 1993. Rule 75 deals with family pension for railway servants, 1964. In Railway Services Pension Rules, sub-rule (5) of Rule 70 says as follows:

"For the purpose of this rule, Rules 71, 73 and 74 "family", in relation to railway servant means--

(i) Wife or wives including judicially separated wife or wives in the case of a male railway servant."

8. Rule 75 deals with Family Pension Scheme for Railway Servants, 1964. Sub-rule (7)(i)(a) of Rule 75 stipulates that where the family pension is payable to more widows than one, the family pension shall be paid to the widows in equal shares. Therefore, from these rules, it appears that rule making authorities made provision for the second wife, being aware of the situation where the railway employee may perform a second marriage during the lifetime of the first wife. Sub-rule (7)(i)(a) stipulates that where there are more widows of a deceased railway employee, family pension shall be paid to the widows in equal share.

9. In view of the admitted position that the first wife of the child begotten from the said first wife were no more surviving and there is no other claimant for the family pension. I direct the respondent to release the family pension to the applicant within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the Central Administrative Tribunal could not have ignored the effect of section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which provides for void marriage, and, in the instant case, respondent, second wife, had married the deceased railway employee during subsistence of the first marriage. He submitted that the Courts or the Tribunals are not supposed to make orders contrary to law, i.e., section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which is the mistake on the part of the Tribunal. He, therefore, prayed for setting aside the impugned Judgment and Order made by the Central Administrative Tribunal.

5. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners carefully. We quote section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which reads thus:

"11. Void marriages.--Any marriage solemnized after the commencement of this Act shall be null and void and may, on a petition presented by either party thereto, against the other party, be so declared by a decree of nullity if it contravenes any of the conditions specified in clauses (i), (iv) and (v) of section5."

6. Undoubtedly, it is clear from reading of the above provision that the Hindu Marriage Act treats the second marriage as void during subsistence of the first marriage. The contention raised by Mr. Lambat is attractive, but does not appeal to us.

7. We ca