.

Hon’ble Suneet Kumar, J.—Heard Sri S.M. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri C.K. Parekh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Km. Anju Pandey for respondent No. 4.

2. The petitioner claims to be the legally wedded wife of Shatrudhan Singh who was working as a senior clerk in Nagar Palika Parishad, retired on 30.6.2008 thus was receiving pension, thereafter, died on 16.1.2012. According to the petitioner, from their marriage had two sons namely Rajendra Singh, Mahendra Singh and one daughter namely Renu Bala Singh. Since the daughter has been married and the sons are doing their own work, the petitioner approached the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Mirzapur for family pension, however, the petitioner was denied the family pension and proposal was made to grant family pension to the respondent No. 4. The respondent No. 4 claims to be the second wife of the petitioner.

3. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking following reliefs:

“I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 3 to decide the representation of petitioner dated 20.3.2012 (Annexure 3 to this writ petition).

II. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to give the pension to petitioner on behalf of her husband.”

4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner, being the legally wedded wife, is entitled to family pension under the U.P. Nagar Palika (Non-Centralized Service Retirement) Benefits Regulations, 1984. It is further submitted that ‘family’ as defined does not include the second wife, and hence, the petitioner is entitled to the family pension.

5. Sri C.K. Parekh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Nagar Palika Parishad, submits that the respondent No. 4 has been nominated to receive death-cum-retirement gratuity, and hence family pension was ordered in her favour, however, further submits that the person who falls within the definition of ‘family’ is entitled to family pension.

6. Km. Anju Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4, admits that the petitioner is the first wife, three children were born out of the wedlock, the respondent No. 4 is the second wife married to the deceased, in 1989. Km. Anju Pandey further submits that since she has been nominated as the wife in the various documents pertaining to retiral dues respondent No. 4 is entitled to family pension.

7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

8. The facts are not disputed that the petitioner was married to Shatrudhan Singh in 1969 according to Hindu customs and rites, out of the wedlock had two sons and one daughter, this fact is not disputed by the respondent No. 4. The respondent No. 4 had contracted marriage with Shatrudhan Singh on 28.11.1989. The order dated 29.7.1995 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-II, Mirzapur, in 125 Cr.P.C. proceedings registered as Misc. Case No. 332 of 1992 (Smt. Singh v. Shatrudhan Singh) reflects Shatrudhan had acknowledged the petitioner as his wife, the Court awarded Rs. 400/- per month as maintenance which was regularly paid to the petitioner from the salary and after retirement from the pension of the deceased employee. After the death of Shatrudhan, dispute has arisen between the wives for family pension, respondent No. 4, the second wife claims pension on the basis of nomination in her favour.

9. The Supreme Court in Bakulabai and another v. Gangaram and another, 1988 (25) ACC 119, held that the marriage of a Hindu woman with a Hindu male with a living spouse performed after the coming into force of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is null and void and the woman is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.

10. The Apex Court in Smt. Sarbati Devi and another v. Smt. Usha Devi, AIR 1984 SC 346, held that a mere nomination made in an insurance policy does not have the effect of conferring on the