The Bombay High Court’s Aurangabad bench has ruled that an estranged wife and her two children were entitled to family pension and other terminal benefits of a government employee who recently died. However, the bench also said that divorce proceedings had been initiated before his death and allegations of adultery, though levelled, were not proved.

A bench of Justices Manish Pitale and YG Khobragade was hearing a plea by an estranged wife and her two children. The woman and her husband were married in 1997 and the husband, a government medical college associate professor, was appointed in 2009. However, the couple’s relationship soured and in 2011, the husband initiated divorce proceedings against the wife.

In the midst of matrimonial discord between the couple, the husband unilaterally changed the details of nominees who would be beneficiaries of the family pension. So, instead of his wife, his brother was made a nominee, while the professor retained the names of his two sons.

However, in 2018, the husband died and later his estranged wife and children applied for pensionary dues. The husband’s mother and brother contested the claim, citing a nomination form in which the wife’s name had been replaced with that of the brother about four years before death.

The mother and the victim’s brother pointed to initiation of divorce proceedings by the associate professor and the allegations of adultery against the wife by him before his death, besides pointing to the change in nominee by the husband.

Advocate Yashodeep Deshmukh, appearing for the estranged wife and children, pointed to Rule 115 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules (MCSR), which pertains to nominations and a proviso to Sub-Rule thereof, which stated that when the government servant has a family, the nomination shall not be in favour of any person or persons other than the members of his family.

For this, the bench looked through the definition of ‘family’ and found that only the wife and children fell within the definition of ‘family’ under Rule 116 of MCSR.

The bench observed that the definition of family further showed that “the petitioner (estranged wife) could be denied benefits only if she was judicially separated from the victim (her husband) on the ground of adultery or that she was held guilty of committing adultery”.

The bench further observed that in this case, only an allegation was made against the estranged wife in the pending matrimonial proceeding, but before the proceeding could reach finality, her husband had died.

“There is no finding of any competent judicial authority regarding the allegation of adultery levelled against” the estranged wife, the bench said.

Directing the Maharashtra government to release arrears within eight weeks, the court added that delays would attract 9 per cent annual interest, and ordered that monthly family pension commence immediately thereafter.

– Ends

Tune In