Judgment 1. It is claimed by the petitioner that the wife of the deceased Government employee died sometimes in 1985 and thereupon in 1985 itseif the deceased Government employee married the petitioner. The petitioner is contending that during the lifetime of the deceased Government employee he represented to the employer that after the death of his first wife, he has married the petitioner, and accordingly the petitioner should be substituted as his nominee in place of his deceased wife. The original of this letter has been produced in Court which contains seal of the employer but that seal does not contain the date of receipt of this letter. 2. Be that as it may, the son and the daughter of the deceased, begotten through the marriage solemnized in between the deceased and his deceased wife, are disputing any relationship of husband and wife in between the petitioner and their father. As a result, the petitioner has approached the Civil Court seeking a declaration that she is the duly married wife of the deceased Government employee. The suit is pending and has not yet been decreed, as a result the status of the petitioner as wife of the deceased Government employee has not yet been settled by the forum chosen by the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner cited a judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Rameshwari Devi V/s. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2000(2) PLJR 15(SC) for the proposition that in a situation of this nature, the Supreme Court directed the State of Bihar to enquire into the matter. In that case the dispute was in between two wives. Initially, a learned Single Judge, thereupon a Division Bench and ultimately the Hon ble Supreme Court held that the first wife as well as the minor children though begotten in the voidable marriage were entitled to family pension. In order to award a right to obtain family pension it was enough to establish that the minors who were claiming such entitlements were begotten by the deceased employee through a exclusive concubine even during the lifetime of the legally wedded wife. Such a finding when not seriously disputed i.e. either the exclusiveness is not seriously disputed or the association is not seriously disputed is only a matter of perception which can be based on a legitimate enquiry. Such a finding when not seriously disputed i.e. either the exclusiveness is not seriously disputed or the association is not seriously disputed is only a matter of perception which can be based on a legitimate enquiry. That judgment, therefore, has no application in so far as the present case is concerned. In the instant case, the petitioner is claiming her right to get family pension on the basis of her marriage solemnized in accordance with law after the death of the first wife which fact is being disputed and accordingly the petitioner has approached the Civil Court for obtaining an appropriate declaration. 4. A nominee discharges a third party from him obligation to meet the credit held by him for the benefit of the deceased. A succession certificate also serves the self same purpose. When, therefore, the deceased employee has died without a nominee, a third party debtor cannot discharge the debt unless a succession certificate is produced. Therefore, in order to have all other terminal dues, as a nominee the petitioner in the absence of an accepted nomination in law, is required to obtain a succession certificate. 5. In order to obtain family pension on the basis of her status as the widow of the deceased in the absence of acceptance by his society, the petitioner is required to establish the same and for that matter she has already approached the Civil Court as she was advised much prior to filing of the present writ petition. 6. Accordingly the present writ petition is utterly frivolous and the same is accordingly dismissed.