G. Sasidharan, J.

1. The claim of a widow for family pension was declined by saying that it is not possible to grant family pension without production of a certificate issued by a judicial officer stating that the marriage between the petitioner and the Government employee had not been dissolved. No judicial officer will issue a certificate stating that a marriage has not been dissolved and in effect the family pension to the widow stands denied. The appellant filed O.P. No. 11312/97 seeking direction to the respondents to grant and disburse family pension as permissible under law.

2. Learned Single Judge disposed of the Original Petition observing that the Government is bound to disburse the amount only to the children of the Government employee who had been nominated by him while in service. The learned Single Judge also observed that the nominees will hold the amount in trust for the other legal heirs also and who are all entitled to get the amount is a question which cannot be decided in the proceedings and the remedy open to the parties is to approach a civil court. The finding of the learned Single Judge that the Government is bound to disburse the amount due towards family pension only to the nominees is challenged in this appeal. The observation by the learned Single Judge that the remedy available to the petitioner is in a civil court is also assailed.

3. Claim of the appellant is that she is the widow of Sri. P.P. Sankarankutty who was employed in the Agricultural Department. Admittedly, Sankarankutty married the petitioner in the year 1958 and three children including a daughter were born to them. The case of the appellant is that the relationship between the appellant and her husband became strained because the husband became alcoholic. The appellant would allege that by coercion the appellant was made to put her signature in a document, dated 14th October 1983 described as a divorce deed and was registered as document No. 930 of 1983 in the Sub Registrar's Office, Wandoor. Apart from the execution of such a document, there was no legal divorce between the appellant and her husband. Ext. P1 is the copy of the document which is stated to be a deed of divorce. The husband of the petitioner retired from service on 30th June 1993 and he was killed in a motor accident on 22nd November 1994. Ext. P2 is a legal heirship certificate issued by the Tahsildar showing that the appellant and her three children are the legal heirs of the deceased Sankarankutty.

4. Appellant gave an application before the fifth respondent for granting family pension to her as the widow of deceased Sankarankutty. Then Ext. P3 letter was sent to the appellant from the Office of the Principal Agricultural Officer, Malappuram stating that as per the records in Wandoor Sub Registrar's Office it was found that the marriage of the appellant with Sankarankutty was dissolved and that two children of Sankarankutty were shown in the pension book as the nominees eligible to get family pension. The appellant was also asked to explain about the above matter. Ext. P4 representation was given by the appellant. Thereafter, Ext. P7 letter was received by the appellant in which it is stated that family pension cannot be granted to her till a certificate issued by a judicial officer stating that the marriage had not been dissolved is produced.

5. Sub-rr.1 to 13 of R.90 of Part III K.S.R. deal with granting of family pension under the liberalised family pension scheme. Sub-r. 6 of the above rule says what is meant by family. The relatives of the employee who will come within the definition of family are mentioned in the above sub-rule. Note 1 to the above sub-rule says that if there are no surviving members of the family mentioned in items (a) to (e), Government may sanction family pension to the members referred to in items (f) and (g) subject to the conditions prescribed in sub-r. 6A. Contributory family pension will be admissible to parents (father/mother)