19-WP-11500-2025.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 11500 OF 2025 Anjali Anant Sawant ...Petitioner Versus State Of Maharashtra Thr The Principal Secretary And Ors ...Respondents —————— Mr. Rugwed Kinkar i/b Mr. Drupad Patil, for the Petitioner. Mr. Avinash Naik, AGP for the Respondent-State. —————— Coram : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH & NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ. Date : AUGUST 19, 2026 P. C. : 1. By this Petition, the Petitioner takes exception to the impugned order dated 21st March, 2024 and 14th January, 2025 passed by the Respondent No. 3 and Respondent No. 2 by which the Petitioner’s claim for family pension came to be rejected on the ground that the Petitioner’s marriage with the government employee Anant Vishnu Sawant was during the lifetime of the first wife, and therefore, second marriage is considered null and void. 2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that on 11th June, 1989, Petitioner’s marriage with Anant Sawant was solemnized as per Hindu rites and rituals, and on 9th December, 1991, a daughter was born Arya Chavan 1 of 4 2026:BHC-KOL:7800-DB 19-WP-11500-2025.doc to the couple. He would submit that since 1989 the Petitioner and the deceased Anant were residing together as family. He would further point out that on 24th November, 1994, Petitioner filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 178 of 1994 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class (“JMFC”), Wai under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short “CrPC”). He submits that in those proceedings, a specific issue was framed as regards the Petitioner being legally wedded wife of Anant, which was answered in the affirmative and it was held that the Petitioner was entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC. He submits that the first wife Chhaya Barge expired on 27th September, 2004, and thereafter, Anant Sawant expired on 22nd July, 2006. He would further submit that the first wife’s maiden name was Chhaya Namdev Barge, and an affidavit was filed with the authorities stating that the maiden name was Chhaya Namdev Barge, and after marriage the name of the first wife was Chhaya Anant Sawant. He would submit that there is no dispute that the first wife expired on 27th September, 2004 and the death certificate is annexed at page 31. He would draw support from the decision in the case of Chowdamma (D) By LR And Another vs Venkatappa (D) By Lrs. And Another1. 3. Learned AGP would support the impugned order and would submit that as the Petitioner is not legally wedded wife of Anant Vishnu 1 2025 SCC Online SC 1814 Arya Chavan 2 of 4 19-WP-11500-2025.doc Sawant, the marriage is null and void, and the Petitioner is not entitled to family pension. 4. We have perused the record and considered the submissions canvassed. 5. There does not appear to be any dispute about the fact that on 11th June, 1989, the Petitioner solemnized her marriage with Anant Sawant. Even if it is assumed that the marriage is not legal and valid by reason of the spouse living at the time of the marriage, the Petitioner and the deceased Anant Vishnu Sawant were residing together as husband and wife since 11th June, 1989 and there is a child which is born from the said wedlock. The relationship status at the highest can be said to be a relationship in the nature of marriage. The law is developed to an extent where live-in relationship has been recognized as relationship in the nature of marriage provided the necessary conditions are satisfied. After the death of first wife, the relationship acquired the status of relationship akin to marriage. The provisions of Domestic Violence Act afford the same protection to a person in a live-in relationship and there is no reason as to why the Petitioner, who has been residing with the deceased Anant Sawant since 11th June, 1989, and has also begotten a child from the said marriage, should be denied the benefits of relationship in the nature of marriage. In Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 178 of 1994, which was an application Arya Chavan 3 of 4 19-WP-11500-2025.doc filed under Section 125 of the CrPC, the Court has answered the issue as regards the Petitioner being legally wedded wife of the deceased Anant by taking into consideration the long standing continuous cohabitation between the Petitioner and the deceased Anant Sawant. 6. This Court is informed that there are no legal heirs from the first marriage, and the first wife had pre-deceased Anant Sawant. The denial of the family pension to the Petitioner would be travesty of justice as there is no rival claim raised for the family pension and the long- standing cohabitation between the Petitioner and Anant Vishnu Sawant has not been taken into consideration. 7. In light of the above discussion, we are inclined to allow the Petition. The impugned orders dated 21st March, 2024 and 14th January, 2025 are hereby quashed and set aside. 8. The Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to process the Petitioner's application for grant of family pension expeditiously, and in any event, within a period of four weeks from today, and grant the benefits accordingly. [NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.] [SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.] Arya Chavan 4 of 4