LAXMI BAPU KHARATversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

                                                            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 5 th 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