ANJALI ANANT SAWANTversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS

2026:BHC-KOL:7800-DB

                                                                             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              ...Respondents
               And Ors

                                                ——————
               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 11 th June,

               1989, Petitioner’s marriage with Anant Sawant was solemnized as per

               Hindu rites and rituals, and on 9 th December, 1991, a daughter was born


               Arya Chavan                          1 of 4
                                                     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 11 th 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