Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 717 (KAR)

RAJESHWARI v. SILVIA FLORANCE

2002-11-22

B.PADMARAJ

body2002
PADMARAJ, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellants and carefully perused the case records including the impugned judgment and Decree passed by the Ist Appellate Court, whereby it has partly allowed the appeal filed by the appellants. ( 2 ) THE defendants are the appellants herein. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree of the 1st Appellate Court dated 20. 6. 2002 whereby the 1st Appellate Court has partly allowed the appeal and set aside the Judgment and Decree of the Trial court in respect of plaintiffs 2 and 3. By the impugned judgment and Decree, the 1st Appellate Court has held that the plaintiffs 2 and 3 shall get equal share each alongwith the defendants 1 to 4 in the service benefits of late Shivaraj Patil. It has further held that the plaintiffs 2 and 3 and defendants 1 to 4 will have equal shares in the service benefits of late Shivaraj Patil subject to the condition that the plaintiffs 2 and 3 will get their shares in the family pension till they attain the age of majority. It further restrained the defendant no. 1 from taking the share of the plaintiffs 2 and 3 in the service benefits of late Shivaraj Patil and also restrained defendant No. 1 from taking shares of plaintiffs 2 and 3 out of the family pension of late Shivaraj Patil till attaining the age of majority from the defendants 5 to 7. Aggrieved by such Judgment and Decree, the defendants have preferred this Second Appeal before this Court. ( 3 ) THE brief facts of the case as enumerated in the appeal memo may be stated as under: ( 4 ) THE Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein filed a suit in O. S. No. 18/99 before the trial Court for the relief of declaration that the respondent No. 1 is the wife and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the sons of late Shivaraj Patil and that they are entitled to claim the benefits like group insurance, leave salary, pension and gratuity from the offices of the Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 and for the relief of injunction restraining the appellant No. 1 from taking the amount of pension of late Shivaraj Patil. 2 and 3 are the sons of late Shivaraj Patil and that they are entitled to claim the benefits like group insurance, leave salary, pension and gratuity from the offices of the Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 and for the relief of injunction restraining the appellant No. 1 from taking the amount of pension of late Shivaraj Patil. According to the respondents, the respondent No. 1 is the legally wedded wife of late Shivaraj Patil and their marriage took place about 14 years ago and it was a love marriage and they were leading a happily married life and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are born to them out of the wedlock. It is further stated that the appellant No. 1 is the 1st wife of late Shivaraj patil and the appellant Nos. 2 to 4 are the children born to them. The said Shivaraj Patil died on 16. 7. 1998. Late Shivaraj Patil was working as Junior health Assistant at Bheemarayanagudi hospital and due to his death certain benefits are payable from certain government offices and also family pension. The present appellants being the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 contested the suit by denying the relationship of Respondents 1 to 3 with late Shivaraj Patil and that the Respondent No. 1 married late Shivaraj Patil about 14 years ago and as such leading a married life and getting children does not arise. it is stated that the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are not the children of late Shivaraj Patil. It is their case that the appellant no. 1 is the legally wedded wife of late Shivaraj Patil and appellants 2 to 4 are the children born to them. Regarding the nomination in lic policy, it is stated that since the Respondent No. 1 was also working in the same office, she has managed to get her name entered in the policy and she succeeded in getting that amount in collusion with the LIC people without the knowledge of the appellants. According to them, the plaintiffs/ respondents are not entitled for any of the reliefs. On the pleadings of the parties, certain relevant issues were framed by the Trial Court and the parties went to trial. At the conclusion of the trial, the Trial Court after hearing the submissions on both sides, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. According to them, the plaintiffs/ respondents are not entitled for any of the reliefs. On the pleadings of the parties, certain relevant issues were framed by the Trial Court and the parties went to trial. At the conclusion of the trial, the Trial Court after hearing the submissions on both sides, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court, the plaintiffs/respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed an appeal before the Lower appellate Court. The appellate Court after hearing the submissions on both sides has partly allowed the appeal of the respondents. Hence this Second Appeal. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellants has vehemently contended before me that the 1st appellate Court has committed an error in formulating only one point which is not in conformity with Order 41 Rule-31 of CPC. In support of this submission, he has relied upon a ruling of the Bombay High Court in the case of vishwas vs GHASIRAM1. He further contended that the 1st appellate Court has stated that the marriage of the 1st respondent with the deceased is not proved and having stated so, it was not justified in merely relying upon the decision of the Honble Supreme court reported in 2000 (1) CCC 223 (SC) and granting the decree in favour of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. While elaborating this submission, he contended that when the marriage itself is not proved, the 1st appellate Court ought to have dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. He contended that the 1st appellate Court was not at all justified in brushing aside the finding recorded by the Trial Court on the important aspect of proof of marriage and relationship between the plaintiff and late Shivaraj Patil. He also contended that in so far as family pension is concerned, it is payable only after the death of the Government servant and it does not form part of the estate of the deceased and hence the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 cannot be held to be entitled for a share in such family pension. He contended that as per Rule-8 of the Karnataka Government servants (Family Pension) Rules, where the Government servant dies leaving him or her surviving a widow, the family pension is to be sanctioned to the widow of the deceased and hence the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 cannot be held to be entitled for a share in such family pension. He contended that as per Rule-8 of the Karnataka Government servants (Family Pension) Rules, where the Government servant dies leaving him or her surviving a widow, the family pension is to be sanctioned to the widow of the deceased and hence the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 cannot be entitled for any share in the family pension to be sanctioned in accordance with the said rules. While elaborating this submission, he contended that in so far as the family pension is concerned, it cannot form part of the estate of the deceased and it is to be disbursed or sanctioned in accordance with Rule-8 of KGS (FP) Rules and it will not be governed by the personal law of the parties. He therefore contended that the suit of the plaintiffs ought to have been dismissed alteast to the extent of their claim for family pension. He therefore contended that the substantial questions of law as proposed in the memorandum of appeal will arise for consideration in this Second appeal filed by the appellants and hence the appeal may be admitted on the substantial questions of law as proposed in the appeal memo. ( 6 ) HAVING heard the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellants and having carefully perused the case papers including the impugned Judgment of the 1st Appellate Court, the short question that would arise for consideration at this stage is whether any substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal filed by the appellants? ( 7 ) IN a Judgment delivered on hearing an appeal under Order- 41 Rule-30 of CPC by a Court subordinate to the High Court, compliance with the provisions of Order-41 Rule-31 of CPC is necessary. A Judgment pronounced after hearing under Order-41 rule 30 of CPC must comply with the requirements of Order-41 rule 31 of CPC. ( 7 ) IN a Judgment delivered on hearing an appeal under Order- 41 Rule-30 of CPC by a Court subordinate to the High Court, compliance with the provisions of Order-41 Rule-31 of CPC is necessary. A Judgment pronounced after hearing under Order-41 rule 30 of CPC must comply with the requirements of Order-41 rule 31 of CPC. A Second Appeal is allowed from such decrees under Order-42 read with Section 100 of CPC and before the 1st appellate Court in the second appeal can make up its mind as to whether there are any grounds for interference under Section-100 of CPC, it must know the points which were for determination and the decision of the Lower Appellate Court on each of those points in order to decide whether the decree can be affirmed or not. If the appellate Court were simply to dismiss the appeal or allow the appeal without stating the points for determination and the decision thereon. It would be difficult to know what were the points for determination and what were the decisions thereon. The question whether in a particular case there has been substantial compliance with the provisions of Order -41 Rule 31 of CPC is a different one depending upon the nature of the Judgment delivered or pronounced in each case. A non-compliance with the strict provisions of this rule may not vitiate the Judgment and make it wholly void and the irregularity may be ignored if there has been substantial compliance with it and the 2nd Appellate Court is in a position to ascertain the findings of the Lower Appellate Court. In the instant case I find that there has substantial compliance with the provisions of Order-41 Rule-31 of CPC by the Lower Appellate Court. It is no doubt true that the 1st appellate Court has framed only one point for determination and recorded its conclusion thereon. But while discussion on the said point for determination framed by the lower appellate Court, it considered every aspect of the case and came to certain conclusion, based upon that, the Judgment has been delivered. It is no doubt true that the 1st appellate Court has framed only one point for determination and recorded its conclusion thereon. But while discussion on the said point for determination framed by the lower appellate Court, it considered every aspect of the case and came to certain conclusion, based upon that, the Judgment has been delivered. Hence, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the impugned Judgment of the Lower Appellate Court is not in accordance with law and the court below should be called upon to give a proper judgment, complying with the provisions of Order-41 Rule-31 of CPC. ( 8 ) THE 1st appellate Court being the final Court of facts has found from the evidence on record that the deceased Government servant and the plaintiff No. 1 who fell in love with each other had been living together as husband and wife and the plaintiffs 2 and 3 are born to them. The said finding recorded by the 1st appellate court is supported by the evidence. It is essentially a finding which falls in the realm of the appreciation of evidence and hence I am not inclined to interfere with the same. Now coming to the status of the plaintiff No. 1, it has to be stated that though her status cannot be regarded as that of a legally wedded wife in the presence of the 1st wife of the deceased, marriage being personal right of the spouses, they were entitled to live after the marriage though in the case of a love marriage, openly to the knowledge of all the members of the community in which they live and by such living together and begetting children by such living together they acquired a marital status. Recognition per se is not condition precedent and it is common knowledge that many a times even married men for reasons best known to them fall in love with other women and more so when they are working as colleagues and marry and keep the same secret. In such cases, it may be very difficult rather impossible to prove the factum of marriage. The only competent person to speak to this fact would be either husband or wife. In this case the husband having died, the wife gave evidence about their love marriage. In such cases, it may be very difficult rather impossible to prove the factum of marriage. The only competent person to speak to this fact would be either husband or wife. In this case the husband having died, the wife gave evidence about their love marriage. Their conduct of living together and begetting children will lend substantial support to the evidence of the 1st plaintiff about her love marriage with the deceased. The children born to them out of their such marriage were Hindus. Therefore though the marriage of the 1st plaintiff with the deceased had no legal recognition, all the while they were living together as husband and wife and thereby the 1st plaintiff acquired the status of the wife of the deceased. The word, marriage includes any intimate union between man and an woman establishing a new family unit. Admittedly in this case it was not a marriage of convenience, but it was a love marriage whereby the deceased and the plaintiff No. 1 emotionally united together out of their own will in order to form a new family and in fact they formed a new family unit and begot children. ( 9 ) THUS the plaintiff No. 1 was for all practical purposes the wife of the deceased, but of course in the presence of the defendant no. 1, the 1st wife of the deceased, her status in law cannot be recognised as a wife, but only of a wife by a void marriage. It has to be pointed out that a strong presumption arises in favour of a wedlock where the partners have lived together for a long spell as husband and wife. In the instant case, the deceased and the 1st plaintiff lived together for more than 14 years as husband and wife and children born to them out of such relationship. Under the circumstances, the law leans in favour of legitimacy and frowns upon bastardy. Where a man and woman lived together for long years as husband and wife, then a presumption arises in law of legality of the marriage existed between the two. Nevertheless that however does not make the marriage between the plaintiff No. 1 and the deceased as legal in the presence of the defendant No. 1. But the children born out of such relationship are legitimate children by virtue of Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Nevertheless that however does not make the marriage between the plaintiff No. 1 and the deceased as legal in the presence of the defendant No. 1. But the children born out of such relationship are legitimate children by virtue of Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Therefore so far as the plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, they were entitled to succeed to the estate of the deceased. This is because under section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the children of a void marriage are legitimate. Now the question that would arise for consideration is whether the plaintiffs 2 and 3 who are considered to be legitimate children of the deceased and plaintiff No. 1 by virtue of Section-16 of the Hindu Marriage Act will be entitled for the benefits of Family Pension? ( 10 ) RULES 7 and 8 of the Karnataka Government Servants (Family Pension) Rules, 1964 Rules reads as under: 7. In these rules unless the context otherwise requires family means the following relatives of a Government servant: (A) Wife or as the case may be, Husband; (b) Minor Sons (c) Unmarried minor (daughters)PROVIDED that if the son or daughter of a Government servant is suffering from any disorder or disability of mind or is physically crippled or disabled (including blindness) so as to render him or her unable to earn a living even after attaining the age of 18 years in the case of the son or 21 years in the case of the daughter, the family pension shall be payable to such son or daughter for life subject to the following conditions: (I) if such son or daughter is one among two or more children of the Government servant, the family pension shall be initially payable to the minor children in the order set out in Explanation- 2 below Clause (C) of Rule 8 until the last minor children attains the age of 18 or 21 years, as the case may be, and thereafter the family pension shall be resumed in favour of the son or daughter suffering from disorder or disability of mind or who is physically crippled or disabled and shall be payable to him/ her for life. (II) If there are more such children than one suffering from disorder or disability of mind or who are physically crippled or disabled, the family pension shall be paid in the order of their birth and the younger of them will get the family pension only after the elder next above him or her ceases to be eligible:- provided that, where the family pension is payable to twin children, it shall be paid to each child in equal shares. a) Firstly to the son, and if there are more than one son, the younger of them will get the family pension only after the life time of the elder:- (b) Secondly, to the daughter and if there are more than one daughter, the younger of them will get the family pension only after the life time of the elder;iii) The family pension shall be paid to such son or daughter through the guardian as if he or she were a minor;iv) Before allowing the family pension for life to any such son or daughter, the sanctioning authority shall satisfy that the handicap is of such a nature as to prevent him or her from earning his or her livelihood and the same shall be evidence by a certificate in Form-F obtained from a medical officer not below the rank of district surgeon setting out, as far as possible, the exact mental or physical condition of the child; provided that pension is not admissible to cases of Diabetes, dwarfism etc. , which cannot be termed as disabilities as these do not come in the way of earning livelihood as in the case of mental imbalance, physical cripples etc. , since Government servants suffering from diabetes etc. , continue to discharge their duties as Government servants (V) the person receiving the family pension as guardian of such son or daughter shall produce every three years a certificate (in Form-F) from a medical officer not below the rank of a district Surgeon to the effect that he or she continues to suffer from disorder or disability of mind or continues to be physically crippled or disabled. Note: (i) (b) and (c) include children legally adopted before retirement. Note: (i) (b) and (c) include children legally adopted before retirement. ii) xxx iii) A Judicial separate wife/husband does not lose her/his status of wife/husband of a Government servant and is eligible for the benefits of these rules, unless the judicial separation is granted on the ground of adultery and the surviving member was held guilty of adultery: provided that the authority competent to sanction the family pension may in a suitable case, for reasons to be recorded in writing pay the minor children in preference to widower or widow who is judicially separated. (III) For the purpose of these rules, a divorced wife or husband of the Government servant shall be deemed to have pre-deceased the Government servant and shall not be eligible for the family pension, under these rules; but the minor children born to such Government servant from the divorced wife or husband before the divorce shall, however, be eligible for the share of family pension under these rules in the manner indicated in explanation 2 below Clause (c) of Rule 8. Note (V) : (a) If a person, who is the event of death of a Government servant while in service, is eligible to receive family pension under this rule, is charge with the offence of murdering the Government servant or for abetting in the commission of such an offence, the claim of such a person, including other eligible member or members of the family to receive the family pension, shall remain suspended till the conclusion of the criminal proceedings instituted against him; (b) If on the conclusion of the criminal proceedings referred to in clause (a), the person concerned, (I) is convicted for the murder or abetting in the murder of the Government servant, such a person shall be debarred from receiving family pension which shall be payable to other eligible member of the family, from the date of death of the Government servant, (II) is acquitted of the charge, of murder or abetting in the murder of the Government servant, the family pension shall be payable to such a person from the date of death of the Government servant. (c) The provision of Clause (a) and Clause (b) shall also apply for the family pension be coming payable on the death of a government servant after his retirement. 8. (c) The provision of Clause (a) and Clause (b) shall also apply for the family pension be coming payable on the death of a government servant after his retirement. 8. Family pension admissible under these rules shall be sanctioned to the Family of the deceased Government servant in the following order: (A) Where the Government servant dies leaving him or her surviving a widow or widower to such widow or as the case may be widower, of the Government servant. (B) Where the Government servant dies leaving him or her surviving a widow or widower, to the eldest minor son or minor daughter, if any, of the Government servant. (C) Where the deceased Government servants widow or widower, to whom the family pension is sanctioned under sub rule (a) dies or remarries, the family pension shall thereafter to be paid to the eldest minor son or unmarried minor daughter of the deceased Government servant, if any, on the date of death or remarriage of such widow or widower till such minor son attains the age of 18 year or such unmarried minor daughter marries or attains the age of 21 years whichever event occurs earlier. Note (i) A Government servant/ Pensioner may be paid family pension under this scheme in addition to his/her pay or pension. (ii) In the event of death of the father and mother who were both government employees, the minor children will be eligible to draw two family pensions subject to a total of Rs. 250 per mensem provided both the employees were governed by this scheme. (iii) Where the family pension is payable to minor children it may be paid through their natural guardians. In disputed cases, the payment will be made through a legal guardian. (iv) In the event of death of the father and mother after 1. 1. 1977 who were both Government employees, the minor children will be eligible to draw two family pensions subject to a total of rs. 2. 50 per month provided both the employees were governed by this scheme. Explanation 1: For the purpose of this Rule widower means the husband of the deceased Government servant provided he has no other wife living. 1977 who were both Government employees, the minor children will be eligible to draw two family pensions subject to a total of rs. 2. 50 per month provided both the employees were governed by this scheme. Explanation 1: For the purpose of this Rule widower means the husband of the deceased Government servant provided he has no other wife living. Explanation 2: Family pension to the children shall be payable in the order of their birth and the younger of them will not be eligible for family pension unless the elder next above him or her has become ineligible for the grant of family pension. Provided that, where the family pension is payable to twin children, it shall be paid to each child in equal shares. (D) If a Government servant had married more than one wife with the permission of the Government under Rule 28 of the Karnataka civil Services (Conduct) Rule, 1966 the family pension shall be divided among them equally, the share in respect of each wife shall be paid to her; if she is not alive, it shall be paid to her minor children in the manner indicated in the Explanation 2 below clause (C ). When the last member eligible to receive such a share in respect of a wife ceases to be eligible to receive it, such share shall be divided equally among all the other members of the family eligible for family pension on that date. This process of transfer by division among the other beneficiaries shall continue till the last beneficiary of the family ceases to be eligible for family pension. ( 11 ) THE heading of Rule-8 which is like a preamble is of some help and supply a key to the mind of the Legislature and it would indicate that it is a pension sanctioned to the family of the deceased government servant. The term, family appearing in the preamble to Rule-8 gets its meaning from Rule-7 and it means wife/husband, minor sons and unmarried minor daughter of the deceased government servant. They are the beneficiaries of the family pension sanctioned under Rule-8 to the persons mentioned therein in the order of priority. Rule-8 deals with the sanction of the family pension whereas Rule-7 deals with the persons who are entitled for the benefits of such family pension. They are the beneficiaries of the family pension sanctioned under Rule-8 to the persons mentioned therein in the order of priority. Rule-8 deals with the sanction of the family pension whereas Rule-7 deals with the persons who are entitled for the benefits of such family pension. That is to say Rule-7 deals with the beneficiaries of the family pension sanctioned under Rule-8. A conjoint reading of these two rules would clearly indicate that the family pension sanctioned under Rule-8 to the person named therein will be for the benefit of the family as defined in Rule-7. The family pension scheme under the rules is designed to provide relief to the widow and the minor children by way of compensation for untimely death of the deceased Government servant. The rules do not provide for any nomination with regard to the family pension, instead the rules designate the persons who are entitled to receive the family pension. Thus no other person except those designated in the order of priority under Rule-8 are entitled to receive the family pension for and on behalf of the family as defined under Rule 7. The family pension scheme confers monetary benefits on the wife and minor children of the deceased Government servant, but the government servant has no title to it. The family pension scheme is in the nature of a welfare scheme framed by the Government to provide relief to the widow and the minor children of the deceased government servant. Since the rules do not provide for nomination of any person by the deceased Government servant during his life time for the payment of the family pension, he has no title to the same. In that view of the matter, it is not an estate of the deceased. But it certainly confers monetary benefit on the wife and minor children of the deceased Government servant. They are the real beneficiaries of the family pension amount to be sanctioned in the name of one or the other persons mentioned in Rule-8 as per order of priority. Merely because the family pension is required to be sanctioned only in the name of certain persons, who are mentioned in Rule-8, that does not mean that they are the only beneficiaries of that scheme and the beneficiaries of such scheme are the persons who comes under the fold of family as defined under Rule-7. Merely because the family pension is required to be sanctioned only in the name of certain persons, who are mentioned in Rule-8, that does not mean that they are the only beneficiaries of that scheme and the beneficiaries of such scheme are the persons who comes under the fold of family as defined under Rule-7. It is for the benefit of the family as defined under rule-7, the family pension will be sanctioned under Rule-8 in the name of one or the other persons mentioned therein. In fact the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of VIOLET ISSAC vs UNION OF INDIA2 relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellants clearly supports this view. In the said decision, the Honble supreme Court in paragraph-3 of the Judgment has observed as under: The dispute between the parties relates to gratuity, provident fund, family pension and other allowances, but this Court while issuing notice to the respondents confined the dispute only to family pension. We would therefore deal with the question of family pension only. Family pension Rules,1964 provide for the sanction of family pension to the survivors of a Railway Employee. Rule 801 provides that family pension shall be granted to the widow/ widower and where there is no widow/widower to the minor children of a Railway servant who may have died while in service. Under the Rules son of the deceased is entitled to family pension until he attains the age of 25 years an unmarried daughter is also entitled to family pension till she attains the age of 25 years or gets married, whichever is earlier. The Rules do not provide for payment of Family Pension to brother or any other family member or relation of the deceased Railway employee. The Family Pension scheme under the Rules is designed to provide relief to the widow and children by way of compensation for the untimely death of the deceased employee. The Rules do not provide for any nomination with regard to family pension, instead the Rules designate the persons who are in titled to receive the family pension. Thus, no other person except those designated under the Rules are entitled to receive family pension. The Family pension Scheme confers monetary benefit on the wife and children of the deceased Railway employee, but the employee has no title to it. Thus, no other person except those designated under the Rules are entitled to receive family pension. The Family pension Scheme confers monetary benefit on the wife and children of the deceased Railway employee, but the employee has no title to it. The employee has no control over the family pension as he is not required to make any contribution to it. The family pension scheme is in the nature of a welfare scheme framed by the Railway Administration to provide relief to the widow and minor children of the deceased employee. Since, the Rules do not provide for nomination of any person by the deceased employee during his life time for the payment of family pension, he has no title to the same. Therefore, it does not form part of his estate enabling him to dispose of the same by testamentary disposition. ( 12 ) IT is to be seen therefore that though the family pension does not form part of the estate of the deceased Government servant, the same confers monetary benefits on the wife and minor children of the deceased Government servant by virtue of the scheme framed by the Government. They are entitled under law to receive such benefits. As I have already stated, Rule 8 only deals with the person designated to receive the family pension. That is to say it only designate the person on behalf of the family who is entitled to receive the family pension which is meant for the benefits of the widow and minor children of the deceased Government servant. The children of the deceased Government servant though born of a void marriage are deemed to be legitimate children of the deceased Government servant by virtue of Section-16 of the hindu Marriage Act and hence they are certainly entitled to the amount payable under the family pension scheme during the period of their minority. The children born to the deceased Government servant out of the 2nd void marriage are entitled to share in the family pension and death-cum-gratuity amount along with the wife and children of the 1st marriage, but family pension would be admissible to the minor children only till they attain the majority. In the Honble Supreme Court has concluded as under: 14. In the Honble Supreme Court has concluded as under: 14. It cannot be disputed that the marriage between Narain lal and Yogmaya Devi was in contravention of clause (ii) of section-5 of the Hindu Marriage Act and was a void marriage under Section 16 of this Act, children of a void marriage are legitimate. Under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, property of a male Hindu dying intestate devolve firstly on heirs in Clause (1) which include widow and son. Among the wife and son, they all get shares (see Section 8, 10 and the Schedule to the Hindu succession Act, 1956 ). Yogmaya Devi cannot be described a widow of Narain Lal, her marriage with Naraian Lal being void. Sons of the marriage between Narain Lal and Yogmaiaya Devi being the legitimate sons of Narain Lal would be entitled to the property of Naraiah lal and in equal shares along with that of rameshwari Devi and the son born from the marriage of rameshwari Devi with Naraian Lal. That is, however, legal position when Hindu male dies intestate. Here, however, we are concerned with the family pension and death-cum retirement Gratuity payments which is governed by the relevant rules. It is not disputed before us that if the legal positions as aforesaid is correct, there is no error with the direction issued by the learned Single judge in the Judgment which is upheld by the Division Bench in lpa the impugned judgment. ( 13 ) THIS being the position of law as has been laid down by the Apex Court, which is aptly and squarely applicable to the scheme of family pension, as provided under the Rules contained in karnataka Government Servants (Family Pension) Rules. , is binding on all the Courts. Under the circumstances, therefore, the Court below rightly applied the ruling of the Honble Supreme Court cited supra and decreed the suit in the manner as indicated in the judgment of the 1st Appellate Court. Therefore having given my anxious consideration to the entire matter is issue, I do not find any error in the impugned Judgment of the 1st Appellate Court. Under the circumstances, therefore, I find that no substantial question of law is involved in this Second Appeal filed by the appellants and hence it is liable to be dismissed in limine and it is accordingly dismissed. --- *** --- .