Merely Because Deceased Husband Had Raised Allegations Of Adultery, Family Pension Can't Be Denied To Wife:: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court held that mere allegation of adultery against the wife will not exclude her from the definition of “family” under Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 and she would be entitled to pensionary benefits.

In this case, the divorce proceedings was initiated by the husband on the grounds of adultery, however, during the pendency of the divorce proceedings, the husband died and the proceeding could reach its finality.

The Bench of Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Y.G. Khobragade observed, “Although an attempt was made on behalf of respondent Nos.5 and 6 to contend that since the deceased employee had made allegation of adultery against his wife i.e. the petitioner No.1, she ought not to be covered under the definition of family, but a proper reading of the above quoted definition shows that the petitioner No.1 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 No.1 in the pending matrimonial proceeding, but before the proceeding could reach finality, the employee i.e. the husband of the petitioner No.1 died and there is no finding of any Competent Judicial Authority regarding the allegation of adultery levelled against petitioner No.1.”

Case Brief

The widow and the sons of a deceased employee of the State Government on the one hand and his mother and brother on the other, were claiming the pensionary and terminal benefits payable as per the relevant rules, Government Resolutions and Government Circular.

In 2011, the deceased employee initiated divorce proceedings and also unilaterally changed the details of nominees submitted to the employer, from his wife to his brother. However, the names of the two sons were not removed.

However, the Respondents failed to release the pension and other amounts in favour of the widow and sons. It was also contended by the Widow that although there was a divorce petition pending between the parties, wherein allegations of adultery were made against the widow, the said petition did not reach any conclusion due to the demise of the husband/deceased employee.

While the Respondent mother and brother contended that since the concept of family pension is completely alien to the Defined Contributory Pension Scheme DCPS, there is no substance in the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners.

Court’s Observation

The High Court underscored that in the DCPS, there is no concept of family pension and lumpsum amount is payable to the beneficiaries after the death of the employee of the State Government.

The Court also noted that initially the deceased employee/husband had nominated his wife and two sons for benefits, however, due to marital discord between the parties, he replaced the name of the wife with that of his brother.

However, the Bench opined that the nomination form submitted by the deceased employee was under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (MCSR 1982). “Therefore, it can also be read to mean that the deceased employee opted for family pension under the MCSR 1982. If that be so, the disbursal of family pension has to be in terms of MCSR 1982 and not otherwise”, the Court said.

Crucially, the High Court referred to Rule 116(16) of the MCSR 1982, which provides for the definition of family. As per the Rule, neither the mother nor the brother were covered under the definition.

Further, the contention that there were allegations of adultery against the wife, thus, she would not be covered under the definition of family, was rejected by the Court. The Court observed that only an allegation was made against the wife in the pending matrimonial proceeding, but before the proceeding could reach finality, the employee i.e. the husband died and there was no finding of any Competent Judicial Authority regarding the allegation of adultery levelled against the wife.

The Court held that the wife and sons opted for the benefit of family pension under the MCSR 1982 and in the light of the said policy discernible from the Government Resolutions and Government Circular, the wife and sons deserve to be granted relief.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition was allowed and the Respondents were directed to release benefits of family pension and other entitlements under the MCSR 1982 in favour of the wife and sons.

Cause Title: X V. The State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:26558-DB)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Yashodeep Deshmukh, Anand D. Kawre

Respondents: Advocates A. R. Kale, Kedar Warad a/w Mr. Sunil Warad

Click here to read/download Judgment