903 wp 6642 - 23.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 16642 OF 2023 Laxmi Bapu Kharat. ...Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra and Others. ...Respondents. —————— Mr. Shankar Katkar, Ms. Tanaya Doke i/b Manisha Devkar for the Petitioner. Mr. Atul Vanarase, AGP for the Respondent-State. Mr. Yuvraj Narvankar, Amicus Curiae. —————— Coram : Milind N. Jadhav & Nandesh S. Deshpande , JJ. Date : August 6, 2026. P. C. : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard inally with the consent of parties. 2. Petitioner seeks a direction to the Respondents to grant family pension in respect of deceased Bapu Bandu Kharat and to release the arrears with consequential beneits. 3. The Petitioner claims to be the second wife of deceased Bapu Bandu Kharat. Mr Bapu Kharat, who was working in Mumbai Port Trust (Respondent Nos.2 and 3), retired from services on 1st July 1981 on superannuation. After the death of Mr Kharat, vide communication dated 15th September 2006, the Petitioner informed the respondent no.2, his employer, of his death and further requested for transfer of his pension to her account. The petitioner reiterated her request for Patil-SR 1 of 7 903 wp 6642 - 23.doc transfer of pension to her account vide communication dated 18th September 2006. In the said letter, Petitioner mentions of the divorce obtained by Mr. Bapu Kharat from his irst wife in the Year 2002 and further claims that the irst wife had given up her claim on the movable assets and pension of deceased Mr. Bapu Kharat. The said letter is appended at Exhibit-D to the Petition. 4. The Petitioner would rely upon an agreement dated 5th July 2002, copy of which is appended at Exhibit-“E” to the petition, wherein it is stated that irst wife of Mr Bapu Kharat, i.e., Vaijanta Bapu Kharat had relinquished her rights over his movables assets and pension in lieu of lumpsum maintenance amount of Rs.1 lakh. It further appears that on 15th July 2002 a compromise pursis was iled in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division at Dahiwadi and the Civil Court at Dahiwadi had recorded accord and satisfaction and a decree was directed to be passed in terms thereof. 5. The Petitioner has thereafter pursued the oice of the Respondent-Port Trust for grant of pension but of no avail, inally leading to the iling of the present petition. 6. We have learned Advocates appearing for respective parties as well as Mr. Narvankar, who assisted the Court as amicus. We have also perused the papers. 7. From the papers and correspondence on record it appears that Patil-SR 2 of 7 903 wp 6642 - 23.doc the Respondent Port Trust has not challenged the entitlement of Petitioner or her status as legally wedded wife of deceased, Mr Bapu Kharat. The letter dated 18th September 2006 mentions about the divorce between the parties and the Petitioner has speciically pleaded the same in paragraph no.9 of the petition. There is no reason to disbelieve the same. In fact, there is no rival claimant before us nor was there any before the Respondent Port Trust. 8. The Petitioner is an aged lady of 70 years old. There is no subsisting legal impediment for grant of pension to the Petitioner. The documents on record, including the death certiicate, intimation, and the material showing that the deceased had sought correction of the pension records, support the Petitioner’s case. In fact, in paragraph no. 9 of petition, the Petitioner refers to the letter written by the deceased himself on 7th November 2002 wherein he mentions the name of the petitioner as his legal heir for the purposes of family pension. 9. The governing principle under the pension jurisprudence, as reairmed by this Court, is that family pension is payable to the legally wedded wife, and the rule relating to more widows than one operates only where the claimants are legally entitled in law. A second marriage that is void in law, does not confer pensionary status; however, where the claimant establishes lawful entitlement, the pension cannot be denied on hyper-technical grounds, particularly when there is no other Patil-SR 3 of 7 903 wp 6642 - 23.doc rival claimant and no justiiable reason has been cited by the Respondent for withholding the same. The Petitioner’s case proceeds on the footing that the Petitioner is the legally wedded wife and the sole surviving lawful claimant, and that factual assertion has not been efectively displaced. 10. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has also placed reliance on the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Smt. Shiramabai v. The Captain Record Oicer for O.I.C. Records, Sena Corps Abhilekh, Gaya, Bihar State [Civil Appeal No. 5262 of 2023 decided on 18-8-2023]. In that case, the appellant claimed family pension as the wife of late Subedar Pundalik Bhave and the issue before the Court was whether she could be treated as the legally wedded wife in the backdrop of an earlier marriage of the deceased. The trial court had accepted the appellant’s claim, but the High Court reversed that inding on the ground that the earlier marriage had been dissolved only in 1990 and, therefore, the appellant’s marriage could not be treated as valid. The Supreme Court, after noticing that the appellant had cohabited with the deceased for a long period as his wife and that the irst wife had never staked any claim to pensionary beneits, restored the trial court’s decree and held that the appellant was entitled to receive the pension payable on the demise of the deceased employee. The Supreme Court emphasised that long and continuous cohabitation as husband and wife, Patil-SR 4 of 7 903 wp 6642 - 23.doc coupled with recognition by society and family, raises a strong presumption in favour of a valid marriage, particularly when the erstwhile spouse does not contest or assert a competing claim. On that foundation, the Court recognised the appellant as the legitimate beneiciary for pensionary beneits and allowed the appeal while restoring the decree of the trial court in her favour. The principle emerging from Shiramabai (supra) is that pensionary beneits cannot be denied merely on technical doubts about the marital status where, on the facts, the claimant has been treated as wife for a long period, the relationship is acknowledged in records, and no rival spouse asserts a competing claim. In such circumstances, the Court may, on the evidence, recognise the claimant as the lawful recipient of pensionary beneits so as to avoid a situation where no one receives the pension, defeating its very object. 11. In the present case, the Petitioner similarly asserts her status as the legally wedded wife and places on record material to show that the deceased pensioner had, during his lifetime, sought recognition of her name for family pension purposes, and that there is no efective rival claim from any other alleged spouse. Applying the rationale of Shiramabai (supra), and bearing in mind the beneicial character of family pension, the Petitioner’s claim cannot be repelled on hyper- technical grounds once she is accepted, on the evidence, as the lawful Patil-SR 5 of 7 903 wp 6642 - 23.doc and sole surviving claimant. 12. The pension records and the correspondence placed before the Court also show that the deceased pensioner had, during his lifetime, sought recognition of the Petitioner’s name for family pension purposes. The Respondents have failed to act on those requests in a timely or reasoned manner, resulting in unjustiied denial of a recurring statutory beneit. 13. In these circumstances, the Petition deserves to be allowed and stands allowed in following terms -: O R D E R :- [a] Writ Petition is allowed. [b] Respondents are directed to sanction and release family pension in favour of the Petitioner as legally wedded wife of deceased Bapu Bandu Kharat in accordance with law and the applicable pension rules. [c] Respondents shall also calculate and pay arrears of family pension due and payable to the Petitioner from the date on which the pension became payable, after adjusting any amount already paid, if any. [d] The above exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. [e] In default of compliance within the above period, the arrears shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date they became due till actual payment. [f] No order as to costs. Patil-SR 6 of 7 903 wp 6642 - 23.doc 14. Rule is made absolute in above terms. 15. We put on record our appreciation for the assistance rendered by Mr. Yuvraj P Narvankar, Advocate practicing in this Court to aid the Petitioner’s advocate on our request. [Nandesh S. Deshpande J.] [Milind N. Jadhav, J.] Patil-SR 7 of 7