The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Rule 116 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, in the context of conflicting provisions of The Hindu Marriage Act and The Hindu Succession Act, and the entitlement of widows to family pension.

R.V. Ghuge, J.

1. Heard respective counsel for the parties. The petitioners have filed this civil revision application upon being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 9-3-2012 delivered by the learned Civil Judge, S.D. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Judge') in Misc. Application No. 27/2006 and the judgment and order dated 13-12-2012 delivered by the learned District Judge-5, Ahmednagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the District Judge') in Regular Civil Appeal No. 490/2012.

2. Petitioner No. 1 claims to be the second wife of the deceased Dhulaji Shriram. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the children born out of co-habitation between Dhulaji Shriram and petitioner No. 1 Kantabai. Deceased Dhulaji was in service of the Forest Department. He joined service in the year 1981 and died on 14-6-1998. As such the petitioners filed Misc. Application No. 27/2006 before the learned Judge. In the said applications, the petitioners claimed pension and other benefits on the plea that petitioner No. 1 is admittedly the second wife of deceased Dhulaji. The first legally wedded wife Hausabai and her two sons were impleaded as opponents in the said application. Initially, the said application was rejected. The petitioners, then preferred an appeal which also came to be dismissed at the hands of the learned District Judge. Both the impugned judgments were challenged in Civil Revision Application No. 6/2011 before this Court. Vide order dated 7-7-2011, the said civil revision application was partly allowed only to the extent of claim of the petitioners for family pension. For this limited purpose, the learned Single Judge of this Court remitted the matter back to the learned Judge.

3. In the light of the facts set out here in above, the learned Judge was therefore required to only look into the aspect of applicability of Rule 116(1)(a)(i) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982.

4. The contention of the petitioners was that the said Rule provides for payment of family pension to widows more than one in equal shares. The respondents herein, who were the opponents before the learned Judge, contended that The Hindu Marriage Act (25 of 1954) and the Hindu Succession Act (30 of 1956) prohibit a second marriage during subsistence of the first marriage. Reliance was placed upon the reported judgment in the case of Nanda Santosh Shirke vs. Jayashri Santosh Shirke and another, 2011(3) Mh.L.J. 941. Undoubtedly, the ratio laid down in the said judgment, in the light of section 1and 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act and section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, was that the legally wedded wife of the deceased would be entitled to succeed to his estate along with her children. Children of the second wife would also be entitled to succeed to his estate upon presumption of legitimacy. However, the second wife would not be entitled to such an estate since the second marriage is void.

5. In the light of rival contentions, the learned Judge, vide the impugned judgment and order dated 9-3-2012, rejected the Misc. Application concluding that the first legally wedded wife Hausabai (respondent No. 1 herein) would be entitled to receive the family pension. Succession certificate, accordingly, was directed to be issued in her name.

6. The petitioners herein, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the learned Judge, preferred R.C.A. No. 490/2012 before the learned District Judge. It was contended in the said appeal that Rule 116 had to be read into isolation since it provided for more than one widow to get pension in equal share. It was the contention that if there are more than one widow, they would be entitled to equal share and that Rule 116 ought not to be mixed up with the Hindu Marriage Act and the Hindu Succession Act. The respondents herein maintained their stand before the learned District Judge. Vide judgment and order dated 13-12-2012, the learned District Judge dismissed the appeal with costs.

7. Being aggrieved by both t