JUDGMENT T. Nandakumar Singh, J. 1. Heard Mr. S. Nepolean, learned Government Advocate appearing for the review petitioner as well as Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. M. Hemchandra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 to 5. 2. There is a chequered history in filing the present review petition and it is the second review petition filed by the review petitioner in respect of the same subject matter. The chequered history, sans unnecessary details, is noted. 3. One Elangbam Santakumar Singh was working as Section Officer Grade-I in the Office of the Chief Town Planner, Town Planning Department, Government of Manipur. The respondent No. 3, Smt. Elangbam(O) Swapana Sinha, according to her, married with Late E. Santakumar Singh on 24.2.1980 at her parental residence at Mathchowmohani, Agartala, Tripura by performing the ritual for marriage of Manipur Hindu and since then they setup their matrimonial house at Bamon Kampu, Imphal East District, Manipur, till E. Santkumar Singh died, i.e., 14.10.1995 and of their wedlock two sons, namely, Elangbam Sunny Singh (respondent No. 4) and Elngbam Vicky Singh (respondent No. 5) were born. The respondent No. 3, Smt. Elangbam(O) Swapana Sinha, is the only legally married wife of Late E. Santakumar Singh. 4. The respondent No. 1, Smt. Elangbam Ongbi R.K. Jibanlata Devi, according to her, married with Late E. Santakumar Singh on 8.4.1994 according to customary Hindu Law prevailing in the State of Manipur and since then the respondent No. 1, Smt. Elangbam Ongbi R.K. Jibanlata Devi, had been living in their matrimonial home at Bamon Kampu, Imphal East District, Manipur and of their wedlock one son, namely, Master Elangbam Pinky @ Winky was born. Late E. Santkumar Singh died on 14.10.1995 due to illness leaving behind the respondent No. 1, Smt. Elangbam Ongbi R.K. Jibnlata Devi and respondent No. 2, Master Elangbam Pinky @ Winky as his legal heirs. 5. After the death of E. Santakumar Singh, the respondent No. 1, Smt. Elangbam Ongbi R.K. Jibanlata Devi, filed a suit being original (succession) Suit No. 26 of 1996 for issuing succession certificate in respect of GPF, DCRG etc. of Late E. Santakumar Singh amounting to Rs. 5. After the death of E. Santakumar Singh, the respondent No. 1, Smt. Elangbam Ongbi R.K. Jibanlata Devi, filed a suit being original (succession) Suit No. 26 of 1996 for issuing succession certificate in respect of GPF, DCRG etc. of Late E. Santakumar Singh amounting to Rs. 1,04,567/-in favour as legal wife of Late E. Santakumr Singh in the Court of the District Judge, Manipur East, Imphal and the learned District Judge passed the judgment and decree dated 3.7.1997 in the said original (succession) Suit No. 26 of 1996 for issuing the succession certificate in favour of the respondent No. 1, Smt. Elangbam Ongbi R.K. Jibanlata Devi. After getting the said succession certificate, the respondent No. 1, Smt. Elangbam Ongbi R.K. Jibanlata Devi, had withdrawn the said amount of Rs. 1,04,567/-. 6. The respondent No. 3, Smt. Elangbam(O) Swapna Sinha, filed Civil Suit being Matrimonial (Declaration) Suit No. 90 of 2000 for declaring her as the legally married wife of Late E. Santakumar Singh in the family Court, Manipur East, Imphal. The respondent No. 3, Smt. Elangbam(O) Swapana Sinha, according to her, came to know about the said judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Manipur East, Imphal dated 3.7.1997 passed in Original (Succession) Suit No. 26 of 1996 for issuing the succession certificate in favour of the respondent No. 1, Smt. Elangbam Ongbi R.K. Jibanlata Devi, only on 20.2.2002 when the respondent No. 1, Smt. Elangbam Ongbi R.K. Jibanlata Devi, filed written statement before the Family Court in connection with Matrimonial (Declaration) Suit No. 90 of 2000. The learned Family Court had finally disposed of the Matrimonial (Declaration) Suit No. 90 of 2000 vide judgment and decree dated 6.7.2002, thereby directing for preparation of 2 (two) PPO, i.e., two family pension books in respect of Late E. Santakumar Singh, one in the name of the respondent No. 1, Smt. Elangbam Ongbi R.K. Jibanlata Devi and another in the name of the respondent No. 3, Smt. Elangbam(O) Swapana Sinha. 7. The review petitioner filed an appeal being Civil Appeal (MAT) No. 03 of 2003 against the said judgment and decree of the learned Family Court dated 6.7.2002 passed in Matrimonial (Declaration) Suit No. 90 of 2000 being Civil Appeal (MAT) No. 03 of 2003 before this Court. 7. The review petitioner filed an appeal being Civil Appeal (MAT) No. 03 of 2003 against the said judgment and decree of the learned Family Court dated 6.7.2002 passed in Matrimonial (Declaration) Suit No. 90 of 2000 being Civil Appeal (MAT) No. 03 of 2003 before this Court. This Court vide judgment and order dated 8.5.2003 dismissed the said Civil Appeal (MAT) No. 03 of 2003 on the ground of non-maintainability add also that the State is not in any manner affected by the impugned judgment and decree dated 6.7.2002. The review petitioner/State Government filed a review petition being Civil Review (MAT) No. 01 of 2003 before this Court for reviewing the judgment and order of this Court dated 8.5.2003 passed in Civil Appeal (MAT) No. 03 of 2003 on the, inter alia, grounds that the two separate Pension Payment Orders cannot be prepared by the State Government or the authority in violation of the pension rules and this Court vide judgment and order dated 21.9.2004 allowed the review petition by directing the respondents (respondents herein) to approach the appropriate forum for a conclusive decision as to who would be the legally married wife to make herself entitled to for the pension so that the State Government can issue the pension papers to her in terms of the Pension Rules. Thereafter, the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 filed the Matrimonial (Declaration) Suit No. 24 of 2004 in the learned Family Court, Manipur against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for a declaration that the respondent No. 3, Smt. Elangbam(O) Swapana Sinha, is the legally married wife of Late E. Santakumar Singh and the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are their children and that, they are entitled to get the family pension and other service benefits of Late E. Santakumar Singh. The learned Family Court vide judgment and decree dated 21.11.2005 passed in the said Matrimonial (Declaration) Suit No. 24 of 2004 declaration that the respondent No. 3, Smt. Elangbam(O) Swapana Sinha, is the legally married wife of Late E. Santakumar Singh and the respondent Nos. The learned Family Court vide judgment and decree dated 21.11.2005 passed in the said Matrimonial (Declaration) Suit No. 24 of 2004 declaration that the respondent No. 3, Smt. Elangbam(O) Swapana Sinha, is the legally married wife of Late E. Santakumar Singh and the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are the legitimate children born to them and also declared that the marriage of the respondent No. 1, Smt. Elangbam Ongbi R.K. Jibanlata Devi with Late E. Santakumar Singh is void ab initio and the respondent No. 2, Master Elangbam Pinky @ Winky is entitled to the rights in or to the property of the parents in view of Section 16(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 8. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 21.11.2005 passed by the learned Family Court in the said Matrimonial (Declaration) Suit No. 24 of 2004, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed the Matrimonial Appeal No. 07 of 2005 before this Court. When the said Matrimonial Appeal No. 07 of 2005 was taken up for hearing on 3.4.2008, the learned Counsels appearing for the parties placed a copy of the mutual agreement dated 28.3.2008 between the respondent No. 1, Smt. Elangbam Ongbi R.K. Jibanlata Devi and respondent No. 3, Smt. Elangbam(O) Swapana Sinha, wherein the terms and conditions of their settlement are that the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 have agreed that two separate PPO (Pension Book) in two equal share/proportion are to be prepared and one in the name of the respondent No. 3, Smt. Elangbam(O) Swapana Sinha and another in the name of the respondent No. 2, Master Elangbam Pinky @ Winky in respect of death of Late E. Santakumar Singh and also that any arrears of pensionary benefits in respect of the death of said Late E. Santakumar Singh shall be distributed into two equal shares between the respondent No. 3, Smt. Elanbam(O) Swapana Sinha, and the respondent No. 2, Master Elangbam Pinky @ Winky and also that the respondent No. 3, Smt. Elangbam(O) Swapana Sinha, will not make any claim from the respondent No. 1, Smt. Elangbam Ongbi R.K. Jibanlata Devi, in respect of the amount already with drawn by the respondent No. 1, Smt. Elangbam Ongbi R.K. Jibanlata Devi from the department by producing succession certificate and also that a joint compromise petition shall be filed before this Court for disposal of the Matrimonial Appeal No. 07 of 2005 on the terms and conditions set out in the agreement. 9. This Court vide judgment and order dated 3.4.2008 had disposed of the Matrimonial Appeal No. 07 of 2005 under the terms and conditions mentioned in the said agreement dated 28.3.2008. The review petitioner filed the present review petition for reviewing the judgment and order dated 3.4.2008 for disposing the said Matrimonial Appeal No. 07 of 2005 on the terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement dated 28.3.2008 amongst other grounds; (1) there is error apparent on the face of the record in passing the judgment and order dated 3.4.2008 inasmuch as this Court cannot pass the order for preparation of two Pension Payment Orders of Late E. Santakumar Singh in contravention of the pension rules; (2) Preparation of two Pension Payment Orders of Late E. Santakumar Singh in implementation of the judgment and order dated 3.4.2008 passed in Matrimonial Appeal No. 07 of 2005 is impermissible under the statutory rules. In the review petition it is categorically stated that the review petitioner/State Government has no objection in distribution of the family pension, amongst the respondents, of Late E. Santakumar Singh. 10. Mr. In the review petition it is categorically stated that the review petitioner/State Government has no objection in distribution of the family pension, amongst the respondents, of Late E. Santakumar Singh. 10. Mr. S. "Nepolean, learned Government Advocate appearing for the review petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the different provisions of the Manipur Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1977, which was enacted by means of legislation by adoption, i.e., by adopting CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The Government of Manipur by issuing the Office Memorandum being No. 9/6/94-PIC, Imphal, dated 21.6.1994 clarified that widows more than one will be entitled to equal share of family pension where the death of the Government employee occurred before 28.1.1991, i.e., the date of adoption of the Government of India's clarification, which reads as follows : GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR FINANCE DEPARTMENT (PAY IMPLEMENTATION CELL) OFFICE MEMORANDUM Imphal, the 21st June, 1994 No. 9/6/94-PIC-The Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 has been adopted and enforced by this State Government with effect from 1.1.1977 vide Notification No. 1/3/71-H-F, dated 3.3.1977 under the title to Manipur Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1977. 2. The said Manipur Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1977 was amended by the Manipur Civil Services (Pension) (Amendment) Rules, 1991 vide Notification No. 5/8/87-PIC (III) dated 24.1.1991 adopting the upto date amendments in the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 and Government of India's decisions and clarifications. The said Manipur Civil Services (Pension) (Amendment) Rules, 1991 came into force with effect from 28.1.1991 i.e. the date on which the Notification dated 24.1.1991 was published in the Manipur Gazette. 3. Clarification has been sought regarding the dates from which the above adoption is to be given effect to and also the date upto which such benefit of sharing family pension will be given. 4. The matter has been further examined by the Government and it is hereby clarified that widows more than one shall be entitled to equal share of family pension where the death of the Government employee occurred before 28.1.1991 i.e. the date of adoption of the Government of India's clarification. Sd/- (H. Deleep Singh) Under Secretary (PIC), Government of Manipur 11. In the instant case, Late E. Santakumar Singh died after 28.1.1991 mentioned in the said Memorandum dated 21.6.1994 and, therefore, only one widow will be entitled to family pension. Sd/- (H. Deleep Singh) Under Secretary (PIC), Government of Manipur 11. In the instant case, Late E. Santakumar Singh died after 28.1.1991 mentioned in the said Memorandum dated 21.6.1994 and, therefore, only one widow will be entitled to family pension. The relevant portions of the CCS(CCA) Pension Rules are quoted hereunder : 8(i) Except as provided in Sub-rule (7), the family pension shall not be payable to more than one member of the family at the same time. (ii) I a deceased Government servant or pensioner leaves behind a widow or widower, the family pension shall become payable to the widow or widower, failing which to the eligible child. 12. Second wife is not entitled to the family pension as a legally wedded wife under the Hindu Marriage Act. The Central Government (Ministry of Law) also made a clarification that the second wife is not entitled to the family pension vide C & A.G., New Delhi, Letter No. 211-Audit I/13-86, dated the 4th March, 1987. The relevant advice/clarification given by the Ministry of Law in the matter is quoted hereunder : "It is specifically a question arising under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Under Rule 54(7)" of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, in case a deceased Government servant leaves behind more than one widow or a widow and eligible offspring from another widow, they are entitled to family pension in respect of that deceased Government servant. Section 11 of the Act provides that any marriage solemnized after the commencement of the Act shall be null and void and can be annulled against the other party by a decree of nullity if the same contravenes any of the conditions specified in Clauses (i), (iv) and (v) of Section 5 of the Act. Section 5(1)stipulates that the marriage cannot be legally solemnized when either party has a spouse living at the time of such marriage. Therefore, any second marriage by a Hindu male after the commencement of 1955 Act during the life , time of his first wife will be a nullity and have no legal effect. Such marriage cannot be valid on the ground of any custom. In fact, a custom opposed to an expressed provision of law is of no legal effect. So under these circumstances, the second wife will not be entitled to the family pension as a legally wedded wife." 13. Such marriage cannot be valid on the ground of any custom. In fact, a custom opposed to an expressed provision of law is of no legal effect. So under these circumstances, the second wife will not be entitled to the family pension as a legally wedded wife." 13. Requirements for valid marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 are mentioned in Section 5of the Act under which for a valid marriage neither party has a spouse living at the time of the marriage. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the respondent No. 3, Smt. Elangbam(O) Swapana Sinha married with Late E. Santakumar Singh on 24.2.1980. At the time of marriage of the respondent No. 1, Smt. Elangbam Ongbi R.K. Jibanlata Devi with Late E. Santakumar Singh on 8.4.1994, the respondent No. 3, Smt. Elangbam(O) Swapana Sinha was living as a spouse of Late E. Santakumar Singh. It is not the case of the parties that Late E. Santakumar Singh divorced the respondent No. 3, Smt. Elangbam(O) Swapana Sinha before marrying the respondent No. 1, Smt. Elangbam Ongbi P.K. Jibanlata Devi on 8.4.1994. Under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the children born of a void marriage are legitimate. Therefore, irresistible conclusion would be that the respondent No. 2, Master Elangbam Pinky @ Winky, is a legitimate son of Late E. Santakumar Singh under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, property of a male Hindu dying intestate devolves firstly on heirs which include the widow and son and accordingly, the respondent No. 2, Master Elangbam Pinky @ Winky, will get the share of the pension of Late E. Santakumar Singh. 14. The Apex Court in Rameshwari Devi v. State of Bihar and Ors. (2000) 2 SCC 431 held that the children of the second marriage are entitled to family pension and not the second widow. Para Nos. 9 and 14 of the SCC in Rameshwari Devi (supra) read as follows : 9. 14. The Apex Court in Rameshwari Devi v. State of Bihar and Ors. (2000) 2 SCC 431 held that the children of the second marriage are entitled to family pension and not the second widow. Para Nos. 9 and 14 of the SCC in Rameshwari Devi (supra) read as follows : 9. Now, when the first order was cancelled by the State Government and the second passed depriving Yogmaya Devi and her children of any right in the pensionary benefits of Narain Lal, she filed writ petition in the High Court, which, as noted above, was allowed by the learned Single Judge and later appeal filed by Rameshwari Devi against that was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court which is impugned. Learned Single Judge referred to Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 holding that even though the marriage of Narain Lal with Yogmaya Devi was void their children would be legitimate and thus would be entitled to claim share in the family pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity of Narain Lal but only till they attained majority. Learned single Judge accordingly issued direction to the State Government to issue fresh sanction order for payment of arrears of family pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity to the minor children born from the wedlock between Yogmaya Devi and Narain Lal till they attained majority but nothing would be payable to Yogmaya Devi. 14. It cannot be disputed that the marriage between Narain Lal and Yogmaya Devi was in contravention of Clause (i) of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act and was a void marriage. Under Section 16 of this Act, 1956, property of a male Hindu dying intestate devolves firstly on heirs in Clause (1) which include the widow and son. Among the widow and son, they all get shares (see Section 8, 10 and the Schedule to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956). Yogmaya Devi cannot be described as a widow of Narain Lal, her marriage with Narain Lal being void. The sons of the marriage between Narain Lal and Yogmaya Devi being the legitimate sons of Narain Lal would be entitled to the property of Narain Lal in equal shares along with that of Rameshwari Devi and the son born from the marriage of Rameshwari Devi with Narain Lal. That is, however, the legal position when a Hindu male dies intestate. That is, however, the legal position when a Hindu male dies intestate. Here, however, we are concerned with the family pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity payments which are governed by he relevant rules. It is not disputed before us that if the legal position as aforesaid is correct, there is no error with the directions issued by the learned single Judge in the judgment which is upheld by the Division Bench in LPA by the impugned judgment. 15. The Apex Court in S. Nagaraj and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Anr. 1993 Supp (4) SCC 595, had decided the circumstances in which the Court can exercise its powers for review to avoid abuse of process or miscarriage of justice. Para 19 of the SCC in S. Nagaraj (supra) reads as follows : 19. Review literally and even judicially means re-examination or reconsideration. Basic philosophy inherent in it is the universal acceptance of human fallibility. Yet in the realm of law the Courts and even the statutes lean strongly in favour of finality of decision legally and properly made. Exceptions both statutorily and judicially have been carved out to correct accidental mistakes or miscarriage of justice. Even when there was no statutory provision and no rules were framed by the highest Court indicating the circumstances in which it could rectify its order the Courts culled out such power to avoid abuse of process or miscarriage of justice. In Raja Prithwi Chand Lal Choudhury v. Sukhraj Rai AIR 1941 FC 1, 2 : 1940 FCR 78 : (1941) 1 MLJ Supp 45, the Court observed that even though no rules had been framed permitting the highest Court to review its order yet it was available on the limited and narrow ground developed by the Privy Council and the House of Lords. The Court approved the principle laid down by the Privy Council in Rajunder Narain Roe v. Bijai Govind Singh (1836) 1 Moo PC 117 : 2 MIA 181 : 1 Sar 175 that an order made by the Court was final and could not be altered. . . .nevertheless, if by misprision in embodying the judgments, by errors have been introduced, these Courts possess, by Common Law, the same power which the Courts of record and statute have of rectifying the mistakes which have crept in. . . . . .nevertheless, if by misprision in embodying the judgments, by errors have been introduced, these Courts possess, by Common Law, the same power which the Courts of record and statute have of rectifying the mistakes which have crept in. . . The House of Lords exercises a similar power or rectifying mistakes made in drawing up its own judgments, and this Court must possess the same authority. The Lords have however gone a step further, and have corrected mistakes introduced through inadvertence in the details of judgments; or have supplied manifest defects in order to enable the decrees to be enforced, or have added explanatory matter, or have reconciled inconsistencies. Basis for exercise of the power was stated in the same decision as under : It is impossible to doubt that the indulgence extended in such cases is mainly owing to the natural desire prevailing to prevent irremediable injustice being done by a Court of last resort, where by some accident, without any blame, the party has not been heard and an order has been inadvertently made as if the party had been heard. Rectification of an order thus stems from the fundamental principle that justice is above all. It is exercised to remove the error and not for disturbing finality. When the Constitution was framed the substantive power to rectify or recall the order passed by this Court was specifically provided by Article 137 of the Constitution. Our Constitution-makers who had the practical wisdom to visualise the efficacy of such provision expressly conferred the substantive power to review any judgment or order by Article 137 of the Constitution. And Clause (c) of Article 145 permitted this Court to frame rules as to the conditions subject to which any judgment or order may be reviewed. In exercise of this power Order XL had been framed empowering this Court to review an order in civil proceedings on grounds analogous to Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. The expression, 'for any other sufficient reason' in the clause has been given an expanded meaning and a decree or order passed under misapprehension of true state of circumstances has been held to be sufficient ground to exercise the power. The expression, 'for any other sufficient reason' in the clause has been given an expanded meaning and a decree or order passed under misapprehension of true state of circumstances has been held to be sufficient ground to exercise the power. Apart from Order XL, Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules this Court has the inherent power to make such orders as may be necessary in the interest of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of Court. The Court is thus not precluded from recalling or reviewing its own order if it is satisfied that it is necessary to do so for sake of justice." 16. In Lily Thomas and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (2000) 6 SCC 224 , the Apex Court had not only discussed the earlier decisions of the Apex Court in S. Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka and Ors. 1993 Supp (4) SCC 595, but also in Raja Prithwi Chand Lal Choudhury v. Sukhari AIR 1941 FC 1, Patel Narshi Thakershi v. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji (1971) 3 SCC 844 , A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1988) 2 SCC 602 and held that : The power of review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law. A review is also not an appeal in disguise. It cannot be denied that justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers and the rules or procedures or technicalities of law cannot stand in the way of administration of justice. Law has to bend before justice. If the Court finds that the error pointed out in the review petition was under a mistake and the earlier judgment would not have been passed but for erroneous assumption which in fact did not exist and its perpetration shall result in a miscarriage of justice nothing would preclude the Court from rectifying the error. 17. The Apex Court in Surjit Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (1997) 10 SCC 592 , in which the Tribunal refused to correct the mistake on technical grounds, held that : when a patent error is brought out to the notice of the Tribunal, the Tribunal is duty bound to correct with grace its mistake of law by way of review of its orders or/directions. v. Union of India and Ors. (1997) 10 SCC 592 , in which the Tribunal refused to correct the mistake on technical grounds, held that : when a patent error is brought out to the notice of the Tribunal, the Tribunal is duty bound to correct with grace its mistake of law by way of review of its orders or/directions. This Court in Ranjit Biswas v. Pabitra Narayan Choudhury 1996 (2) GLT 92, is of the view that the expression "any other sufficient reasons" mentioned in Order XLVII, Rule 1, CPC also extend to the grounds/reasons on which the Court can entertain review petition for doing substantial justice. This Court in Ranjit Biswas (supra) had reviewed the earlier ex parte judgment and order for disposing the Civil Revision for doing substantial justice. This Court similarly in Lalmalsawm v. State of Manipur 2003 (3) GLT 437, for the doing substantial justice by interpreting the expression "any other sufficient reasons" mentioned in Order XLVII, Rule 1 , CPC extended to the reasons on which application for review could be entertained for doing substantial justice had allowed the application for review for reviewing the earlier judgment and order for disposing the writ petition on merit in the absence of writ petitioners. 18. Further this Court in State of Manipur and Ors. v. Manipur Hills and Plain Contractors Association and Anr. AIR 2006 Gauhati 73, held that the Court is duty bound to correct with grace its mistake of law by way of review of its orders or/directions. In the present case, it is clear that there is an error apparent on the face of the record in passing the judgment and order dated 3.4.2008 passed in Matrimonial Appeal No. 07 of 2005, wherein and where-under this Court directed to prepare two PPOs (Pension Payment Orders) in infraction of the relevant provisions of the Pension Rules, which has been discussed above, that the second wife is not entitled to family pension. It is also reiterated that in the present review petition, the review petitioner/State Government has no objection to the distribution of the family pension of Late E. Santakumar Singh amongst the legal heirs. 19. It is also reiterated that in the present review petition, the review petitioner/State Government has no objection to the distribution of the family pension of Late E. Santakumar Singh amongst the legal heirs. 19. For the foregoing decisions, we are of the considered view that two Pension Payment Orders cannot be prepared on the death of Late E. Santakumar Singh in favour of his two wives and also that the second wife is not entitled to the family pension; however, the children of the second marriage even though void shall be entitled to family pension. Accordingly, the judgment and order dated 3.4.2008 passed in Matrimonial Appeal No. 07 of 2005 is modified to the extent that the Pension Payment Order should be prepared in the name of the respondent No. 3, Smt. Elangbam(O) Swapana Sinha, subject to rider that the respondent No. 3, Smt. Elangbam(O) Swapana Sinha would protect half of the family pension as per terms and conditions of the said agreement dated 28.3.2008 and would hand over the half share of the family pension to the respondent No. 1, Smt. Elangbam Ongbi R.K. Jibanlata Devi and respondent No. 2, master Elangbam Pinky @ Winky or would deposit the half share in the Bank Account of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 whenever she receives the family pension. The respondent No. 3, Smt. Elangbam(O) Swapana Sinha, shall inform the respondent No. 1 before she receives the family pension. 20. The review petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Petition allowed.