In a noteworthy judgment, the Bombay High Court held that merely making allegations of ‘adultery’ against a woman does not disentitle her from claiming a share in her deceased husband's family pension under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (MCSR).

A division bench of Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Yanshivraj Khobragade, therefore, declined to grant any relief in the plea filed by the deceased man’s brother and mother, noting that the husband’s accusations of adultery and his decision to live apart from his wife did not affect her entitlement to the family pension.

The judges observed that under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules,(MCSR) 1982, the categories of “family members” do not include relatives such as a brother or mother. The bench further recorded the respondents’ argument—that because the deceased employee had accused his wife (the petitioner) of adultery, she should be excluded from the definition of “family”—but found no merit in this contention.

“A proper reading of the MCSR provisions show that the petitioner wife 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 wife in the pending matrimonial proceeding, but before the proceeding could reach finality, the employee i.e. the husband of the petitioner died and there is no finding of any Competent Judicial Authority regarding the allegation of adultery levelled against her,” the judges held in the order.

The judges further took into account the Government Resolutions issued on September 29, 2018, March 31, 2023, and August 24, 2023, which provide that only the employee is entitled to family pension, during his lifetime and after his death only the family members (spouse and children) are entitled for the same .

Background:

As per the facts, the deceased was appointed as an Associate Professor on July 8, 2009 and had been married to the petitioner since 1997. Because his appointment came after November 1, 2005, he fell under the Defined Contributory Pension Scheme (DCPS) in terms of the Government Resolution dated October 31,2005.

However, with time, the couple decided to part ways and on January 15, 2011, the husband filed divorce proceedings against the petitioner. Subsequently, the deceased changed the details of the nominees for the family pension and replaced the petitioner's name with that of his brother and mother. He however, retained the names of his two sons.

The brother and mother opposed the wife’s petition by citing the change of nominees and relying on certain Government Resolutions (GRs). However, the judges held that they had misinterpreted those GRs by failing to read them in conjunction with the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (MCSR).

The bench, therefore, allowed the woman's plea and ordered the authorities to disburse the family pension amount to her and her two sons.

Case Title: VVB vs State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition 11613 of 2019)