husband had entered into a second marriage with the respondent no. 6, which was however, during the subsistence of the marriage with her and it appears that certain documents which were in the custody of the respondent no. 6 were utilized and accordingly, the petitioner was deprived from the pensionary benefits.

3. I have heard Ms. G. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Ms. D. Das Barman, learned State Counsel for the official respondents and Ms. K. Devi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6.

4. Ms. Borah, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is not in dispute that the second marriage with the respondent no. 6 was entered into during the subsistence of the marriage of the deceased government servant with the petitioner and the parties being Hindus, the said marriage is invalid in the eyes of law. It is also submitted that the petitioner's name being given as the nominee in the Service Book of the deceased government servant, there is no reason for depriving the petitioner from the family pension. She has also informed that the petitioner is aged about 80 years having six children and one of the children is mentally challenged and t