Wife Cannot Be Disentitled From Claiming Right In Husband's Family Pension Merely On Allegations Of Adultery: Bombay High Court

In a significant order, the Bombay High Court on Friday held that merely levelling allegations of "adultery" against a woman cannot disentitle her from claiming a right in her deceased husband's family pension under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (MCSR).

A division bench of Justices Manish Pitale and Yanshivraj Khobragade therefore, refused to grant any relief to the brother and mother of a deceased man, who was living separately from his wife after accusing her of adultery.

The judges noted that as per the MCSR, the relations like "brother and mother" are not included in the definition of "family members."

The bench noted the contention of the respondents (brother and mother of the deceased employee), attempted to argue that since the deceased employee had made allegation of adultery against his wife i.e. the petitioner, she ought not to be covered under the definition of family.

"A a proper reading of the MCSR provisions show that the petitioner wife could be denied benefits only if she was judicially separated from the deceased employee i.e. her husband on the ground of adultery or that she was held guilty of committing adultery. The facts of the present case show that only an allegation was made against petitioner wife in the pending matrimonial proceeding, but before the proceeding could reach finality, the employee i.e. the husband of the petitioner died and there is no finding of any Competent Judicial Authority regarding the allegation of adultery levelled against her," the judges held in the order.

The judges further took into account the Government Resolutions issued on September 29, 2018, March 31, 2023 and August 24, 2023, which provide that only the employee is entitled to family pension, during his life time and after his death only the family members (spouse and children) are entitled.

As per the facts, the deceased was appointed as an Associate Professor on July 8, 2009 on a regular basis. He was married to the petitioner since 1997. As the deceased was appointed after November 1, 2005, as per Government Resolution dated October 31, 2005, he was covered under the Defined Contributory Pension Scheme (DCPS).

However, with time, the couple decided to part their ways and on January 15, 2011, the husband filed divorce proceedings against the petitioner. Subsequently, the deceased changed the details of the nominees for the family pension and replaced the petitioner's name with that of his brother and mother. He however, retained the names of his two sons.

On this change of nominees, the brother and mother relied and had opposed the petition filed by the wife. However, the judges held that the brother and the mother, wrongly relied on certain GRs without reading them with MCSR.

The bench, therefore, allowed the woman's plea and ordered the authorities to disburse the family pension amount to her and her two sons.

Appearance:

Advocates Yashodeep Deshmukh and Anand Kawre appeared for the Petitioners.Additional Government Pleader AR Kale represented the State Authorities.

Advocates Kedar Warad and Sunil Warad represented the Respondents.

Case Title: VVB vs State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition 11613 of 2019)

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment