A 'Nata Vivah' (customary marriage) recognized under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, entitles the spouse to family pension, and judicial admission of the relationship by the deceased government servant outweighs the absence of nomination in official service records.

Order

08/01/2026

1. The instant writ petition is preferred by the petitioner with following prayer:-

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this

Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow

this writ petition and; further be pleased to direct

the respondents to release the family pension and

arrears thereof to the petitioner along with interest

thereupon @ 18% per annum.

Any other order or direction which this Hon’ble

Court deems just and proper in the facts and

circumstances of the case may also be passed in

favour of the petitioner.”

2. The short controversy raised herein is that : Whether the petitioner, who claimed to be wife of the deceased Government servant Puran Lal Saini is entitled for family pension or not?

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after death of first wife, deceased Puran Lal Saini has solemnized marriage with the petitioner Ram Pyari Suman and out of the wedlock, the petitioner has given birth to one female child. He further submits that due to some matrimonial dispute with Puranlal, the petitioner was constrained to file a proceeding under Section 125 of CrPC before the Family Court, Kota, wherein the Family Court has granted maintenance and same is paid by late Shri Puran Lal Saini. He further submits that after some time, an application for enhancement in maintenance is filed under Section 127 of CrPC wherein deceased Puran Lal Saini has appeared as a witness and his admission clearly indicate that he considers present petitioner as his wife.

4. Learned counsel further placed reliance upon Rule 66 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, (for short ‘the Rules of 1996’) and further placed reliance upon judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Urmila Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3193/2022 (decided on 03.09.2024 by a Co-ordinate Bench) and submitted that even if there exists a matrimonial dispute between husband and wife and wife is not nominated as the successor or a family members, to receive service benefits after the death of Government servant, even then a wife is entitled as she has not been legally divorced from the deceased Government servant. He further placed reliance upon a judgment of Division Bench of High Court of Delhi in case of Smt. Soni Devi Vs. Union of India and Anr. : W.P.(C) No.4501/2018 decided on 01.08.2025.

4. Aforesaid contentions are opposed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. He submits that present petitioner is not nominated as family member by the deceased Government servant during his lifetime and unless the name of present petitioner is mentioned in Government record as one of the family member, the petitioner is not entitled to receive family pension after death of Government servant. He further submits that Annexure-3, as annexed by the petitioner itself indicate that the petitioner has entered into a contractual relation like Nata and same cannot be termed as marriage, so the petitioner is not entitled for any relief from this Hon’ble Court.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record including the reply filed by the respondents on record.

6. The facts of the case indicate that the petitioner has claimed herself to be a legally wedded wife of deceased Government servant Puran Lal Saini, who expired on 20.12.2020. Admittedly, deceased Puran Lal Saini has retired from the post of Patwari (Government service) and a PPO No.764934 has been issu