The main legal point established in the judgment is that a woman whose marriage to a male Hindu Government employee is void is not entitled to Family Pension under Rule 116(6)(a)(i) of the Pension Rules, and the court emphasized the need for a holistic and harmonious reading of the Service Rules to determine entitlement to Family Pension.

ROHIT B. DEO, J.

1. Heard Shri S.P. Panditkar, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Shri N.H. Joshi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Shri A.M. Kukdey, learned Advocate for respondent No.3. By their consent, writ petition is taken up for final hearing by issuing Rule, making the same returnable forthwith.

2. Petitioner Ramabai Gulabrao Jamnik is assailing the refusal of Family Pension reflected in communication dated 04-06-2014 (Annexure-A) issued by respondent 2Accountant General (Accounts and entitlement) II to respondent 3Principal District Judge, Yavatmal. The refusal of Family Pension is on the premise that Ramabai married the deceased employee Gulab Jamnik during the life time of the first wife one Mankarna and the marriage is null and void in view of the provisions of Section 5 read with Sections 11 and 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (“Act of 1955” for short).

3. Ramabai asserts in paragraph 2 of the petition that it was only after the demise of first wife Smt. Mankarna that late Gulabrao married her. She further avers that since Gulabrao suffered a Paralytic attack, he could not complete the formality of nomination of the name of the petitioner for Family Pension. She avers that Gulabrao expired on 17-2-2011 leaving behind him, the petitioner, Ganesh who is son born from the wedlock between Gulab and first wife late Mankarna, Sau. Vaishali Gavai and Prashant, who are respectively the daughter and son born from the petitioner's wedlock with Gulab.

4. The assertion that petitioner Ramabai married late Gulab after the demise of first wife Mankarna is obviously incorrect. Respondent 2 in affidavit in reply has stated that Smt. Mankarna Jamnik the first wife of Gulabrao Jamnik expired on 11-12-1988. It is further stated that Gulabrao Jamnik took voluntary retirement on 30-04-1988. The pension proposal incorporating the details of his family was submitted by respondent 3 to respondent 2 which reveals that the name of the wife of Gulabrao Jamnik is mentioned as Mankarna. Respondent 2 further asserts that the documents inter alia the Birth Certificates of children born to the petitioner and Gulab reveal that the birth date of Ganesh, the son born to Gulab and his first wife Mankarna, is 01-09-1976 and Vaishali and Prashant who are children of Gulab and petitioner Ramabai are born on 01-07-1979 and 19-01-1985 respectively.

5. In view of the death of Mankarna the first wife on 11-12-1988, we have no hesitation in proceeding on the premise that petitioner Ramabai married Gulab during the life time of first wife Mankarna and that her marriage is void in view of the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 referred to supra. We must record, that in all fairness the learned Counsel for the petitioner has not seriously contended that Ramabai's marriage with Gulab was valid. Au contraire, the submission of the learned Counsel is that in view of the provisions of Rule 116(6)(a)(i) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (“Rules” for short) Ramabai is entitled to Family Pension notwithstanding that her marriage with the deceased employee is null and void.

6. Shri Panditkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner would urge that issue is not res integra and is covered by the Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported in Union of India and another vs. Jaywantabai wd/o Ramrao Kewoo, 2015(2) Mh.L.J. 328. The learned Counsel submits that Rule 75 of the Railways Services Pension Rules, 1993, which is pari materia with Rule 116(6)(a)(i) of the Pension Rules fell for consideration before the Division Bench in Union of India and another vs. Jaywantabai wd/o Ramrao Kewoo and invites our attention to the following observations of the Division Bench.

“8. We cannot be oblivious of what is going on in the society and a further fact that during subsistence of the first marriage, the husband performs the second marriage by practising fraud indulging in cheating with the second woman who, thus, fal