SMT.R.SARADAMMA v. THE COMMISSIONER, BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP)

Judgment

1. This petition is filed challenging an endorsement issued by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (“the BBMP”), by which the BBMP has stated that the petitioner’s claim for family pension cannot be considered till the disposal of O.S.No.3837/2022, which was filed by one S.Chandrashekar, son of the deceased P.Somappa through Ludiyamma @Venkatalakshmi (hereinafter referred to as “Ludiyamma”).

2. The chronology of events, as stated by petitioner, which has led to the filing of the writ petition are as follows: - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:10344 WP No. 21771 of 2023

3. The petitioner states that she had married P.Somappa on 12.06.1976 and out of their wedlock, there were three children born to them.

4. She has stated that during lifetime of P.Somappa, Ludiyamma filed O.S.No.2088/2013 seeking a declaration that the entry of petitioner’s name in column No.4 of the record pertaining to family pension scheme of the BBMP was void and that her name could not have been entered. Ludiyamma had also sought a mandatory injunction to delete the name of the petitioner and insert her name as the nominee in the family pension record relating to P.Somappa, since she was his legally wedded wife.

5. The petitioner has stated that said suit was contested by P.Somappa and he had also filed an application to reject the plaint. She stated that the Trial Court considered this application along with the preliminary issue that had been framed regarding the maintainability of the - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:10344 WP No. 21771 of 2023 suit, and by an order dated 01.07.2019, it dismissed the suit as not being maintainable.

6. The petitioner has also stated that P.Somappa continued to receive his pension till he passed away on

23.10.2020 and after his demise, the petitioner, who had been nominated to receive the family pension, by virtue of her being the wife of P.Somappa, made a claim, but the same was rejected by the impugned endorsement as stated above.

7. It is not in dispute that O.S.No.3837/2022 was filed by S.Chandrashekar claiming to be the son of P.Somappa through Ludiyamma seeking a declaration that the inaction on the part of the BBMP in not granting the pension to his mother Ludiyamma was illegal and he also sought a decree directing the BBMP to pay him damages to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-. A prayer was also made for grant of mandatory injunction to direct the BBMP not to grant family pension to any stranger on account of death of his father P.Somappa. - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:10344 WP No. 21771 of 2023

8. The BBMP, on the basis of this suit, took up the contention that the claim of the petitioner for grant of family pension, notwithstanding the nomination made by her husband, could not be acted upon.

9. The BBMP, its counter, has admitted that P.Somappa was working as an Executive Engineer in their organization and he retired from service on 30.11.2001 and, subsequently, he passed away on 23.10.2020 and till which time he was drawing his pension.

10. The BBMP also stated that after P.Somappa’s demise, the petitioner as well as Ludiyamma had made applications claiming family pension and it also admitted that O.S.No.2088/2013 was filed by Ludiyamma and the same was also dismissed as not maintainable.

11. The BBMP went on to state that Ludiyamma had relied upon the petition filed by P.Somappa against her before the Family Court, Bengaluru in M.C.No.150/2013 and M.C.No.378/2013, whereby P.Somappa had admitted - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC:10344 WP No. 21771 of 2023 that he had married Ludiyamma on 28.04.1966, and P.Somappa had not obtained the permission from the Government to marry another lady. It, however, admitted that a pension payment order had been issued to P.Somappa, in which P.Somappa had nominated the petitioner to be entitled for family pension after his death.

12. It is however stated by the BBMP that as there were two claims, it would not be permissible for them to entertain the claim of the petitioner, more so when S.Chandrashekar had filed a suit in O.S.No.3837/2022.

13. It is stated that since the proceedings M.C.No.150/2013 and M.C.No.378/2013 initiated by P.Somappa itself contained a clear averment Ludiyamma was the legally wedded wife of P.Somappa and that they were married on 28.04.1966, coupled with the deposition of P.Somappa in M.C.No.378/2013 to the same effect, the BBMP could not accept the claim of the petitioner. - 8 - NC: 2024:KHC:10344 WP No. 21771 of 2023

14. The BBMP places reliance on Rule 28 of the Karnataka Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966 (“the Conduct Rules”) which bars a Government servant from contracting another marriage without obtaining permission of the Government, if the Government servant has a living wife. The BBMP also contended that Rule 7 of the Karnataka Government Servants (Family Pension) Rules, 1964 does not entitle the second wife, such as the petitioner, to come within the purview of the definition of “family”, and therefore, the BBMP cannot entertain the claim of the petitioner for family pension.

15. This writ petition was initially filed only against the BBMP, but in view of the fact that the impugned endorsement indicated that S.Chandrashekar had instituted O.S.No.3837/2022, he was directed to be impleaded. Subsequently, since it was stated Ludiyamma and her children had also instituted a suit in O.S.No.4162/2012 in respect of the properties standing in the name of not only Ludiyamma but also the petitioner - 9 - NC: 2024:KHC:10344 WP No. 21771 of 2023 herein, all the children of P.Somappa were directed to be impleaded in this writ petition.

16. Accordingly, the children of P.Somappa (including Chandrashekhar) through Ludiyamma, have entered appearance and filed their objections. In their objections, they contended that the petitioner is the second wife of P.Somappa and this was admitted by P.Somappa himself in the matrimonial proceedings that he had initiated against their mother Ludiyamma and therefore, the claim of the petitioner could not be entertained.

17. It is also contended by the children of Ludiyamma that the name of Ludiyamma alone had to be entered in the service records, but the name of the petitioner is alleged to have been entered in the records. It is stated that an endorsement had been issued by the BBMP that it did not have the original service register and only had a duplicate of the service register of P.Somappa. It is alleged that this duplicate service register was fraudulently created by P.Somappa suppressing the fact that he had - 10 - NC: 2024:KHC:10344 WP No. 21771 of 2023 married Ludiyamma earlier. It is submitted that since the entry in the service record is fraudulent and also contrary to the Conduct Rules and the Family Pension Rules which forbade the contracting of a second marriage and the grant of family pension to second wife, the claim of the petitioner cannot be entertained.

18. In light of the above, the issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is: Whether the petitioner would be entitled to grant of family pension considering the facts and circumstances prevalent in this case?

19. The facts narrated above indicate that P.Somappa was an employee of the BBMP and he ultimately retired as an Executive Engineer on 30.11.2001. The records produced by the BBMP, as well as by the children of P.Somappa through Ludiyamma, indicate that P.Somappa had averred in his petition for dissolution of marriage that he had married Ludiyamma in the year 1966. - 11 - NC: 2024:KHC:10344 WP No. 21771 of 2023

20. It is stated that this petition filed by P.Somappa was dismissed, and as a consequence, there was a subsisting marriage between P.Somappa and Ludiyamma and therefore, even if P.Somappa had married the petitioner, the same would be a void marriage and consequently, she would not be entitled to family pension.

21. Though, under normal circumstances, this plea could straightaway be accepted, given the litigation initiated by

Ludiyamma and the background facts of this particular case, such an approach would not be legally permissible.

22. As stated above, Ludiyamma admittedly instituted O.S.No.2088/2013 seeking a declaration that insertion of the petitioner’s name in the service records of P.Somappa, thereby making her eligible for family pension, was to be declared as null and void, and she also sought a specific direction to be issued to the BBMP to enter her name in the place of the petitioner and consequently, pay her the family pension. This suit was, however, dismissed as not maintainable by an order dated 01.07.2019. In light of this - 12 - NC: 2024:KHC:10344 WP No. 21771 of 2023 dismissal, the entitlement of Ludiyamma family pension came to an end, more so, when she did not challenge the decree of dismissal. As a consequence of the dismissal of the suit, the entry of petitioner’s name in the family pension records also stood confirmed, thereby making her the nominee entitled to receive the family pension on the death of P. Somappa.

23. It may be pertinent to state here that in this suit, the BBMP was in fact arrayed as defendant Nos.1 and 2, and P.Somappa was arrayed as defendant No.3 and the petitioner herein was arrayed as defendant No.4. The dismissal of the suit, in which P.Somappa, the petitioner herein and the BBMP were parties, would result in a situation where the claim of Ludiyamma to be entitled to family pension came to an end. If Ludiyamma, who was the only person entitled to family pension, chose to accept the dismissal of her suit, her children cannot have any claim over the family pension or be permitted to contend - 13 - NC: 2024:KHC:10344 WP No. 21771 of 2023 that the petitioner would not be entitled to receive the family pension.

24. It is to be noticed here that only one of the sons of Ludiyamma i.e., S.Chandrashekar instituted a suit in O.S.No.3837/2022 and in that suit, the prayer was for a declaration that the inaction on the part of the BBMP in not granting family pension to his mother was illegal. S.Chandrashekar also claimed damages to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- from the officials of the BBMP, more specifically, from the salary of the Commissioner and the Chief Accounts Officer. It is to be noticed here that S.Chandrashekar did not and could not also have sought a decree regarding entitlement of the petitioner to claim family pension, since his mother’s suit in that regard had failed. It therefore clear that mere Chandrashekar had filed the suit cannot be a bar for the BBMP to pay family pension to the petitioner.

25. Yet another factor which requires to be noticed in this case is that there is admittedly a pension payment - 14 - NC: 2024:KHC:10344 WP No. 21771 of 2023 order issued in favour of the petitioner and as a consequence, the entitlement of the petitioner to receive the family pension would have to be determined only by the Rules under which the Pension Payment Order has been issued.

26. The issuance of pension payment order is provided for under the Karnataka Government Servants (Family Pension) Rules, 2002 (for short, “the 2002 Rules”).

27. Rule 5 of the 2002 Rules states that if a Government servant dies while in service, after having rendered the necessary qualifying service, the family pension could be paid at the rate of 50% of the last pay drawn.

28. Rule 8 of the 2002 Rules defines “family” to mean, the wife or, as the case may be, the husband or judicially separated wife or husband, a son who has not attained the age of 18 years and an unmarried daughter who has not attained the age of 21 years, including a daughter and son - 15 - NC: 2024:KHC:10344 WP No. 21771 of 2023 who had been adopted legally before the date of retirement.

29. Rule 9 of the 2002 Rules mandates that family pension admissible under the Rules should be sanctioned and paid to the family of the deceased Government servant in the order specified therein i.e., firstly, on the widow/widower as the case may be, secondly, a judicially separate wife or husband, and lastly, if there is no widow/widower, to the minor children in the order of their birth.

30. Rule 9(d) of the 2002 Rules stipulates that where a deceased Government servant’s widow/widower dies or remarries, the family pension is required to be paid to the minor children of the deceased Government servant.

31. Rule 9(e) of the 2002 Rules stipulates that if a Government servant had more than one wife and he had married with the permission of the Government under Rule 28 of the Conduct Rules, the family pension would be - 16 - NC: 2024:KHC:10344 WP No. 21771 of 2023 divided among them equally and if one of them was not alive, it would be paid to her minor children as indicated in clause (d).

32. It is thus clear that under the Rules, the family pension is to be granted only to the members of the family, as contemplated under Rule 8 of the 2002 Rules. Hence, if the averment of P.Somappa that he had married Ludiyamma in the year 1966 is to be accepted, it is obvious that the claim of the petitioner would have to fail.

33. However, Rule 10 of the 2002 Rules stipulates that as soon as the Government servant enters service, he is required to give details of his family members in Form-A to the head of the office and he is also required to intimate the head of the office of any subsequent change in the size of his family and also regarding any disability that manifests in a child which renders him unable to earn his livelihood. The head of the office or the officer who maintains the service record, on receipt of the said Form- A, is required to get the same pasted in the service - 17 - NC: 2024:KHC:10344 WP No. 21771 of 2023 register of a Government servant and acknowledge the receipt of said Form-A and address all further communication that is received from the Government servant in that regard. The head of the office, on receipt of any communication the Government servant regarding any change in the size of the family, is also required to incorporate the change in Form-A.

34. Thus, the requirement of the 2002 Rules is that the Government employee is to furnish the details of his family to the head of the office, and the head of the office is then required to enter the details in the appropriate register. Obviously, the intent behind this Rule is to ascertain from the Government servant himself, the details of his family so as to facilitate the payment of family pension, in the event of his demise.

35. Rule 10(2) of the 2002 Rules states that in the event of a communication from the Government servant about any change in the size of the family, he is required to incorporate the change immediately in Form-A. Thus, once - 18 - NC: 2024:KHC:10344 WP No. 21771 of 2023 again, the obligation is on the Government servant to inform the head of the office of any change in his family.

36. Rule 10(3)1 of the 2002 Rules states that if the head of the office is able to decide whether the claimant was entitled to family pension on the basis of information available with him and updated by way of local enquiry, he is statutorily required, without insisting upon survivorship certificate from the Revenue Authorities, to proceed to decide the issue, and the Accountant General is required to authorise the family pension to the member of the family certified by the head of the office.

37. The proviso to Rule 10(3) stipulates that where there is a dispute or when the particulars available are not sufficient to decide the entitlement of pension, the survivorship certificate should be produced by the family of the deceased Government servant, and the Accountant 1 10(1)***** (2)***** (3) In case where the heads of office are able to decide that the claimant is entitled to the Family Pension under the rules on the basis of the information available with him, as up-dated through local enquiry, the survivorship certificate from the Revenue Authorities need not be insisted upon. The Accountant General shall authorize the family pension to the member of the family certified by the Head of the office as the person entitled as per the rules; Provided that where there is a dispute or the particulars available are not sufficient to decide about entitlement of the claimant, a survivorship certificate shall be produced by the family of the deceased Government servant and the Accountant General shall not insist on the production of the death certificate in cases where the fact of death is recorded and certified in the service book of the deceased official by the Head of the Office. - 19 - NC: 2024:KHC:10344 WP No. 21771 of 2023 General should not insist on the production of a death certificate in cases where the fact of death is recorded in the service register.

38. This sub-rule would, therefore, indicate that if there is a dispute, the head of office is entitled to decide the claim and if the material available before him insufficient, he is entitled to update the information by local enquiry and accept the claim of a person entitled to the family pension, and such a decision would be binding on the Accountant General.

39. It is to be noticed here that this would be in a situation where the head of the office is able to decide the claim on the basis of information available with him. If, however, as in the instant case, the head of the office accepts the information given by P.Somappa - the Government servant, that he was married to the petitioner herein and that information is acknowledged and accepted by him by pasting it in service register, the Rule does not - 20 - NC: 2024:KHC:10344 WP No. 21771 of 2023 permit of embarking upon an enquiry thereafter regarding the entry.

40. It is to be noticed here that under Rule 112 on receipt of information about the death of a Government servant, the head of the office is required to send a letter in Form-B to the family of the deceased Government servant and ask for necessary documents mentioned therein. The prescribed Form-B reads as follows: “Form-B (see Rule11) GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA No. Office of the…………………. Dated…………………………… Subject:- Payment of Family Pension in respect of Shri/Smt. The Undersigned has learnt with regret the death of Shri Smt……… ………………………… a ………………………………… (Designation in this office/Department) and is directed to inform you that under provisions of the Karnataka Government Servants (Family Pension) Rules, 2002, you are entitled to Family Pension for life/till attaining the date of majority.* *Where family pension is admissible to the minor children. I am accordingly to suggest that formal claim of the grant of family pension may be submitted by you in the enclosed Form alongwith the following documents.

1. Death Certificate

2. Two copies of a passport size photograph duly attested by a Gazetted Officer. Guardianship Certificate where pension is admissible to the minor children in case natural Guardians are not alive. (Designation) 2 11. On receipt of the information of the death of an Officer while in service, the Head of the Office will send a letter in Form-B to the family of the deceased Government servant and ask for the necessary documents mentioned therein. On receiving the documents the pension sanctioning authority will sanction the Family Pension as in Form-C and all those documents alongwith the Service Book of the Government servant shall be sent to the Accountant General who will then issue the pension payment order to the beneficiary. - 21 - NC: 2024:KHC:10344 WP No. 21771 of 2023 To. …………………………………. …………………………………… ………………………………...…. ANNEXURE TO FORM-B Form of application for Family Pension to be preferred by the Family* of Government Servants who died while in service

1. Name of the applicant 2. Full address of the applicant 3. Name of the deceased Government servant 4. Designation of post and the Office/Department in which the deceased was working, at the time of death

5. Relationship of the applicant to the deceased Government servant 6. Date of death of the Government servant 7. Name and ages of following surviving kindred of the deceased Widow/Widower Minor Sons Unmarried Minor Daughter Name Date of Birth (by Christian Era) Application should be filed by wife/husband of the deceased Government servant; if either of them is not alive application should be filed by the guardian of the minor children of the deceased

8. Name of Treasure/Sub-treasury at which payment is desired 9. Whether the following documents are enclosed alongwith the application (1) Death Certificate (In original) (2) Two copies of passport size photograph of the applicant duly attested by a Gazetted Officer (3) Two slips each bearing two specimen signatures of the applicant duly attested (4) Two slips each bearing left hand thumb and finger impressions of the applicant duly attested (Applicable only in the case of applicants who are illiterate) (5) Two slips each showing particulars of height and conspicuous identification marks of the applicant (6) Guardianship Certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner of the District where pension is admissible to the minor children in case natural guardians are not alive. (7) A list of surviving members of the family indicating their dates of birth furnished by the Revenue authority not below the rank of a Tahasildar. If the family includes married daughters, the date of marriage should be mentioned. Place: Signature or left hand thumb Date: impression of the applicant. *Father or mother is the natural guardian of the minor children In the case of Muslim families, mother is not the natural guardian.

41. As could be seen from the above, the head of the officer is required to inform the nominee that he/she is entitled to family pension for life or, in case of minor children, that he would be entitled to family pension till the - 22 - NC: 2024:KHC:10344 WP No. 21771 of 2023 attaining of majority. This would thus mean that the head of the office is duty bound to inform the nominee that he/she is entitled to family pension for life and the consequence of this is that the entitlement of the nominee is not open to question or scrutiny after the death of the Government servant.

42. In response to Form-B, the nominee is expected to produce the death certificate and two passport size photographs attested by a Gazetted Officer and on receiving these documents, the pension sanctioning authority would have to sanction the family pension in Form-C and send all those documents (along with the service register) to Accountant General, who shall then issue a pension payment beneficiary.

43. The fact that the nominee is only required to produce the death certificate and two passport sized photographs to the pension sanctioning authority for such authority to sanction pension, clearly indicates that there is no - 23 - NC: 2024:KHC:10344 WP No. 21771 of 2023 question of the authority to embark upon an enquiry after the death of the Government servant.

44. It is to be noticed here that Rules 9 to 11 would come into operation while the Government servant is in service and if the Government servant has complied with the requirement of the above Rules, the pension to the person nominated cannot be denied.

45. Rule 133 of the 2002 Rules also stipulates that the Government servant, while applying for grant of pension upon retirement, is required to furnish three passport size joint photographs of himself with his spouse, and one of the photographs would have to be attested by the head of the office or a superior Gazetted Officer and the same should be pasted in the pension payment order in the 3 13. (1) A Government servant who is governed by these rules shall, while applying for the grant of pension on his retirement should furnish three passport size copies of this joint photograph with his wife, one of which will after having been attested by the Head of the Office or superior Gazetted Officer or the Receiving Authority or the pension sanctioning authority be posted in the Pension Payment Order in the pensioner’s portion. The amount of Family Pension admissible will be mentioned in the Pension Payment Order. The Treasury Officer will make payment to the widow or widower on receipt of death certificate of the Pensioner and the form of application in the proforma annexed to Form-‘B’ for the grant of Family Pension to her/ him under intimation to the Accountant General. If the Family Pension is payable to a minor through his/her Natural Guardian, the Guardian will apply on behalf of the child with 2 copies of the photographs and other necessary documents to the Head of the Office and surrender to him the first pension payment order. A fresh pension payment order will be required to be issued in such cases. (2) The Treasury Officer shall send the intimation regarding the death of the pensioner to the Accountant General in Form-‘D’. - 24 - NC: 2024:KHC:10344 WP No. 21771 of 2023 pensioner’s portion. The amount of family pension admissible would also have to be mentioned in this pension payment order and the Treasury would have to pay the pension to the widow/widower on receipt of the death certificate.

46. It is to be noticed here that once the above process is completed, a pension payment order will be issued and there is no provision under the Rules which enables the head of the office or the disbursing authority from canceling the pension payment order.

47. The power to decide whether the particular person is entitled to family pension, under the Rules, would be available to head of the office before issuance of such pension payment order.

48. Once a pension payment order is issued, the Treasury Officer, on receipt of the death certificate of the pensioner and Form-B, is required to make payment to the widow or widower. This, thereby, indicates that once the - 25 - NC: 2024:KHC:10344 WP No. 21771 of 2023 pension payment order is issued to a pensioner, on his retirement, the role of the head of the office comes to an end and the Treasury Officer who is already bound by the order in pension payment order to pay the pension, is bound to make payment to the widow/widower on being furnished with the death certificate and the Form-B. The fact that the widow/widower is not required to approach the head of the office after the death of the Government servant, and the Treasury Officer is required to make the payment to the widow/widower, is sufficient to conclude that no enquiry is permissible regarding the entitlement of any person after the death of a Government servant.

49. This is obviously because the pension payment order already contains the attested joint photograph of the Government servant and his/her spouse and there is already an order to pay the pension to the retired Government servant and his wife, and the Treasury Officer is to merely accept the death certificate and the Form-B - 26 - NC: 2024:KHC:10344 WP No. 21771 of 2023 before making the payment in terms of the pension payment order.

50. If Rule 13 expressly states that the Treasury Officer is to make the payment to the widow/widower on receipt of the death certificate and the Form-B, without reference or concurrence of the head of the office, the question of any enquiry regarding the entitlement of any person to receive family pension would not arise. In other words, there is no discretion granted to any authority under the 2002 Rules to adjudicate upon the entitlement of family pension once the pension payment order is issued.

51. It is also to be noticed that the only situation where a corrigendum to the pension payment order can be issued is under Rule 15, which relates to a situation where the pensioner marries or remarries ‘after retirement’. Admittedly, this is not a case where P.Somappa had married or remarried after retirement, for the issuance of a corrigendum to the pension payment order. Since, apart from this situation, the Rules do not permit the - 27 - NC: 2024:KHC:10344 WP No. 21771 of 2023 modification or cancellation of a pension payment order, the BBMP cannot deny the payment of family pension to the petitioner.

52. In this case, since, admittedly, the pension payment order has been issued, the question of the BBMP once again seeking to adjudicate on the entitlement of a person to receive the pension or to decide upon the validity of pension payment order which has already been issued, would not arise.

53. It is also to be noticed here that the challenge to the pension payment order was made by Ludiyamma by filing O.S.No.2088/2013 and by virtue of dismissal of said suit, the entry of petitioner’s name in the pension payment order stood confirmed and also became final by virtue of Ludiyamma not challenging the dismissal of the suit.

54. It may be pertinent to state here that Ludiyamma has also passed away on 10.11.2021 and, thus, her entitlement to claim family pension also came to an end. - 28 - NC: 2024:KHC:10344 WP No. 21771 of 2023

55. The arguments that insertion of petitioner’s name was fraudulently done by P.Somappa in his service register cannot be permitted to be agitated, by either the BBMP or by the children of Ludiyamma. The children of Ludiyamma cannot contend that the insertion was fraudulent when the BBMP did not state in its objection that the name of the petitioner was fraudulently entered. The fact that the BBMP was a party to the proceedings in O.S.No.2088/2013 which ended in a dismissal would estop the BBMP from contending that the petitioner would not be entitled for family pension.

56. In this view of the matter, the entitlement of the petitioner for grant of family pension cannot be denied by the BBMP either by citing the filing of the suit by children of P.Somappa through Ludiyamma or on the ground that petitioner was the second wife. - 29 - NC: 2024:KHC:10344 WP No. 21771 of 2023

57. Reliance placed on the decision of the Division Bench of this court in the case of Smt.Mahalakshmamma4 would be of no avail to the respondents in this case.

58. It is no doubt true that the Division Bench in said decision has held that the conduct of an employee in contracting a second marriage, which legally impermissible, cannot be condoned by accepting the second marriage, which is no marriage in the eye of law. It is to be stated here that the Division Bench was not considering a situation where a pension payment order had already been issued in favour of a wife, who is alleged to be the second wife. The question as to whether the pension payment order could be nullified or cancelled by the pension disbursing authority was not the subject matter of the appeal and it has also not been considered at all in the said decision. The said decision basically states that the second wife would not be eligible for pension, which cannot be in dispute, but in the case such as this, 4 Smt.Mahalakshmamma v. the Secretary, W.A.No.256/2023 disposed of on 17.11.2023. - 30 - NC: 2024:KHC:10344 WP No. 21771 of 2023 where the first wife’s claim for entering her name for receiving family pension had been dismissed by the Civil Court and had been accepted by her, the said decision cannot be pressed into service.

59. In the result, a direction is issued to the BBMP to pay the family pension to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, as per the pension payment order that had been issued in favour of P.Somappa and the petitioner herein.

60. It is hereby clarified that this order would not come in the way of any adjudication of rights of the petitioner in any pending civil suits in relation to the properties of P.Somappa or that of the petitioner, where the question of validity of their marriage is raised.

61. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. PKS Sd/- JUDGE