ORDER

Petitioner's contention is that she is a duly married wife of Shri Ramkumar Gautam who was an employee of the State Bank of India. It is submitted that on death of Shri Ramkumar Gautam, she is entitled to family pension but that is being denied on the basis of some frivolous complaints made by children of Shri Ramkumar Gautam who were born from the first wedlock of Shri Ramkumar Gautam.

Shri Subhash Kumar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the affidavit of deceased Ramkumar Gautam as contained in Annexure P-3 and submits that it is crystal clear that first wife of Shri Ramkumar Gautam was Smt. Asha Gautam with whom this marriage had taken place on 11/03/1972. There are three children born of that wedlock namely Rishi Kumar, Manish Kumar and Smt. Jyoti Choubey.

As per this affidavit which was given to the State Bank of India, Branch Ghansore, District Seoni in 2003, it is mentioned that after death of his first wife Smt. Asha Gautam on 16/09/1995, he had entered into the wedlock with present petitioner Smt. Nisha Gautam on 28/11/1996 to take care of his children etc.

and thereafter, he has expressed his Will that out of his retiral benefits, 1/3rd, 1/3rd amount be given to two of his sons and his widow Smt. Nisha Gautam.

Besides this, he has categorically mentioned that family pension be given to his wife Nisha Gautam.

Now, in the second round of litigation, State Bank of India has denied the benefit on the basis of some innocuous complaint made by two sons of deceased Ramkumar Gautam namely Rishi Kumar and Manish Kumar who have mentioned that Smt. Nisha Gautam was earlier married with somebody. She did not obtain proper dissolution of marriage and, therefore, her marriage with Ramkumar Gautam is not a valid marriage.

There is no basis for such allegation. Admittedly, marriage had taken place with Smt. Nisha Gautam on 28/11/1996. Shri Ramkumar Gautam died in the year 2021. For long 25 years, there was no complaint that Smt. Nisha Gautam is not a duly married wife of Ramkumar but is a concubine of Shri Ramkumar.

Smt. Jyoti Choubey D/o Shri Ramkumar Gautam has given an affidavit as contained in Annexure P-7 certifying that her father had entered into a wedlock on 28/11/1996 as per the Hindu traditions and customs with Smt. Nisha Gautam and she is residing as their mother with their family. She has also mentioned that her brothers had thrown out their mother using abusive language and, therefore, she has made a prayer that family pension be given to her. This fortifies the claim of the petitioner that her disgruntled step sons are trying to cause obstruction and bank is becoming party to such matter without there being any substantial evidence in this behalf.

At this stage, Shri Ashish Shroti, learned counsel submits that some dispute was going on between petitioner and her husband and she had filed a case under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for claiming maintenance against Ramkumar Gautam. That be so, this court wanted to know from Shri Ashish Shroti that whether maintenance is admissible in favour of a concubine or it is available only to a duly married wife or a dependent as are defined under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

This court is of the opinion that in view of categorical nomination made by deceased employee Shri Ramkumar Gautam as is available in the form of Annexure P-1, since nomination is in favour of Smt. Nisha Gautam and the relationship is shown as wife, then the Bank is not required to lift the veil and delve into the allegations which are admittedly not substantiated by the complainants who are step sons of the present petitioner. Therefore, a widow cannot be made to suffer only on account of unsubstantiated allegations. Thus, looking to the fact that case for succession is pending before the competent court, petitioner will furnish an indemnity bond in favour of the State Bank of India within fifteen days from today and anticipatory pension shall be started within a further p