ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent preferred by the writ petitioner arises from the order dated 19th September 2012 made by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 638 of 2012. 2. The facts undisputed are that the appellant is the legally wedded wife of the respondent no. 9, Sri Rabindra Prasad. The appellant and the respondent no. 9 were married on 27th April 1977. Since their marriage, the respondent no. 9 secured Government employment in July 1984. Marital discord appeared between the appellant and the respondent no. 9 in early days of their marriage. In 1979, the respondent no. 9 filed suit No. 48 of 1979 for a decree of divorce. The said suit was dismissed on 12th February 1985. Thus, there is no dispute that the appellant and the respondent no. 9 are legally married, but are estranged and are living separately. 3. We are informed at the bar that the appellant is residing with her brothers and is totally dependent upon her brothers. In a claim for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the appellant had been awarded a monthly maintenance of Rs. 500/-. The said maintenance is being paid to the appellant by the respondent no. 9. 4. Having regard to the position of respondent no. 9 in life and his income, the appellant approached the Family Court, Patna for enhancement of the maintenance. As early as on 16th March 2012, the Family Court, Patna has enhanced the monthly maintenance to the appellant to Rs. 5,000/-. We are informed that the said amount has not been paid by the respondent no. 9. He has challenged the order of the Family Court before this Court in a writ petition, CWJC No. 7951 of 2012. The said writ petition is pending before the learned single Judge. Although no order has been made to stay the implementation of the order of the Family Court, the respondent no. 9 has, of his own volition, desisted from paying the additional amount of maintenance. It further transpires that pending all sorts of matrimonial disputes, the respondent no. 9, having completed 20 years of service, took voluntary retirement from Government service in December 2011. Since his retirement, he has received the terminal benefits such as death-cum-retirement gratuity, group insurance, leave encashment, General Provident Fund Amount, commutated value of pension and the monthly pension. 5. It further transpires that pending all sorts of matrimonial disputes, the respondent no. 9, having completed 20 years of service, took voluntary retirement from Government service in December 2011. Since his retirement, he has received the terminal benefits such as death-cum-retirement gratuity, group insurance, leave encashment, General Provident Fund Amount, commutated value of pension and the monthly pension. 5. Learned Advocate Mr. Waliur Rahman has appeared for the respondent no. 9. He has, upon instructions received from the respondent no. 9, admitted that the respondent no. 9 has received terminal benefits in the sum of around Rs. 20 lakhs. A pension payment order for monthly pension of Rs. 14,125/- has been sanctioned by the Accountant General. 6. Feeling apprehensive by the conduct of the respondent no. 9 in not paying the enhanced amount of maintenance and in taking voluntary retirement, the appellant approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in above CWJC No. 638 of 2012 for a simple relief that the State Government be directed to record the name of the appellant as the wife of the respondent no. 9, the retired Government servant; so that in case of her surviving the respondent no. 9, she would receive family pension under the Family Pension Scheme from the State Government. 7. The said petition was opposed by the State Government as well as by the respondent no. 9. Pending the writ petition, under order dated 13th February 2012 made by the learned single Judge (Mr. Justice Navin Sinha), a direction was issued to the State Government to withhold 50% of the terminal benefits that the respondent no. 9 would receive on his voluntary retirement. It may also be noted that all the aforesaid amounts of terminal benefits were paid to the respondent no. 9 before the said order dated 13th February 2012 was made. The said order dated 13th February 2012, therefore, could not be implemented in letter and spirit. However, the respondent no. 9 was allowed to receive only 50% of the pension and 50% of the death-cum-retirement gratuity. Mr. Waliur Rahman has submitted that at the moment, the respondent no. 9 receives a monthly pension in the sum of Rs. 8,475/-. 8. The question that arises for our consideration is whether the respondent no. However, the respondent no. 9 was allowed to receive only 50% of the pension and 50% of the death-cum-retirement gratuity. Mr. Waliur Rahman has submitted that at the moment, the respondent no. 9 receives a monthly pension in the sum of Rs. 8,475/-. 8. The question that arises for our consideration is whether the respondent no. 9 ought to have informed the State Government the particulars of his family i.e. his wife, the appellant for the purpose of family pension. 9. Learned Additional Advocate General Mr. Anjani Kumar has appeared for the State Government. He has vehemently argued that once the respondent no. 9 has retired from Government service, the State Government has no control over him. The State Government, therefore, cannot compel the respondent no. 9 to give the particulars of his family. 10. Learned Advocate Mr. Waliur Rahman has submitted that now the respondent no. 9 is not a Government servant, he is under no obligation to give particulars of his family to the State Government for the purpose of family pension. 11. Mr. Waliur Rahman has submitted that the respondent no. 9 has adopted a son and two daughters and that their names have been entered in the Government record as the nominees of the respondent no. 9. He has also admitted that both, the adopted son and the daughters are adult and are married and settled in life. 12. We quite see the sense of resentment that the respondent no. 9 has nurtured against the appellant. True, the appellant and the respondent no. 9 are estranged since 1979 and the suit for a decree of divorce filed by the respondent no. 9 has been dismissed. The respondent no. 9 did not pay maintenance to the appellant until he was compelled to do so by the order of the Court in 1990. Since 1990, although the order of enhancement of monthly maintenance has been made in March 2012, the respondent no. 9 has not paid a farthing to the appellant towards the enhanced amount of maintenance. The respondent no. 9 has also not acknowledged the appellant as his legally wedded wife for the State record. Hence in the event of her surviving the respondent no. 9, she will not receive family pension. 13. The legal provisions did require the respondent no. 9 has not paid a farthing to the appellant towards the enhanced amount of maintenance. The respondent no. 9 has also not acknowledged the appellant as his legally wedded wife for the State record. Hence in the event of her surviving the respondent no. 9, she will not receive family pension. 13. The legal provisions did require the respondent no. 9 to disclose the particulars of his family to the State Government for the purpose of family pension. The Family Pension Scheme for State Government Employees, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Scheme’) inter alia, requires the non-gazetted employees to furnish details of their family as defined in sub-paragraph (ii) of Paragraph 6 (sic. Paragraph 7). Paragraph 7 of the Scheme, reads as under: 7. The Scheme will be administered as below: (i) The family pension will be admissible in case of death while in service, or, after retirement on or after the 1st April, 1964, if at the time of death, the retired officer was in receipt of a compensation, invalid, retiring or superannuation pension. In case of death while in service, the Government Servant should have completed a minimum period of one year of service. (ii) Family for purpose of the Scheme will include the following relatives of the officer:- (a) wife, in the case of a male officer; (b) husband, in the case of a female officer; (c) minor sons; and ; (d) unmarried minor daughters. Note 1.-(c) and (d) will include children adopted legally before retirement. Note 2.-Marriage after retirement will not be recognized for purpose of this Scheme. (iii) The pension will be admissible:- (a) In the case of widow/widower upto the date of death or remarriage whichever is earlier. (b) In the case of minor son until he attains the age of 18 years. (c) In the case of unmarried daughter until she attains the age of 21 years or married whichever is earlier. Note(i)- xxx xxx xxx Note(i)- xxx xxx xxx (iv) xxx xxx xxx (v) xxx xxx xxx (vi) xxx xxx xxx 14. The aforesaid Paragraph 7 further provides that the family pension would not be payable to more than one member of a pensioner’s family which would first be admissible to the widow or the widower and thereafter to the eligible minor children. The aforesaid Paragraph 7 further provides that the family pension would not be payable to more than one member of a pensioner’s family which would first be admissible to the widow or the widower and thereafter to the eligible minor children. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the appellant is the only family eligible for family pension the respondent no. 9 has, as prescribed in above referred Sub paragraph (ii) of Paragraph 7 of the Scheme. Hence, in our opinion, the learned advocates appearing for the respondents are not right in submitting that the respondent no. 9 was under no obligation to furnish the particulars of his wife, the appellant, to the State Government. Irrespective of the fact that the respondent no. 9 and the appellant were estranged, the respondent no. 9 was under obligation to furnish such details to the State Government. Even the proforma of the pension application provides room for mandatory disclosure of the particulars of the family of the Government servant. The intention of the respondent no. 9 to deprive the appellant of any source of maintenance as far as it is within his control is apparent. 15. It is apparent that the son and the daughters adopted by the respondent no. 9 are not eligible to receive family pension in the event of the death of the respondent no. 9. As recorded hereinabove, even in case of more than one family members being eligible for family pension, the family pension would be given to the widow or the widower alone. In the present case, therefore, the appellant would have a rightful claim over the family pension if that contingency arises. She cannot be deprived of her legitimate right merely because the respondent no. 9 is vindictive. 16. In the above circumstances, the learned single Judge has erred in rejecting the writ petition solely on the ground that right to family pension shall arise only on the death of the respondent no. 9 and that it can be received by obtaining Letters of Administration. The ends of justice requires that the respondent no. 9 be directed to furnish the particulars of the appellant to the State Government and the State Government is directed to receive such information and take follow up action so that in case the appellant survives the respondent no. 9 and that it can be received by obtaining Letters of Administration. The ends of justice requires that the respondent no. 9 be directed to furnish the particulars of the appellant to the State Government and the State Government is directed to receive such information and take follow up action so that in case the appellant survives the respondent no. 9, she receives the family pension as would be admissible under the Scheme. The ends of justice also call for a direction to provide maintenance to the appellant as is directed by the Family Court. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow this Appeal. The impugned order dated 19th September 2012 made by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 638 of 2012 is set aside. CWJC No. 638 of 2012 is allowed. The respondent no. 9, Sri Rabindra Prasad is directed to furnish the particulars of the appellant as his legally wedded wife in the required form to the Project Co-ordinator, Tube Well Wing, Minor Water Resources Department, Vishweshraiya Bhawan, Patna within four weeks from today. 18. On receipt of such application, the Project Co-ordinator will take follow up action and will, within two weeks from the date of the receipt of the information, pass over the information to the office of the Accountant General to do the needful in the matter. The respondent no. 7, the Accountant General (Pension Branch), on receipt of the requisite form and the information from the Project Co-ordinator, will process the same and will issue a revised Pension Payment Order sanctioning family pension to the appellant. Copy of such revised Pension Payment Order will be served upon the appellant on her address shown in the cause title of the present proceeding. 19. It is further directed that the arrears of enhanced monthly maintenance of Rs. 4,500/- payable from March 2012 till August 2013 i.e. Rs. 76,500/- will be paid to the appellant from the amount of 50% of the pension and the death-cum-retirement gratuity withheld under the above referred order dated 13th February 2012. 20. Learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. Anjani Kumar has submitted that such payment will be made by the Project Co-ordinator, Tube Well Wing, Minor Water Resources Department, Vishweshraiya Bhawan, Patna within four weeks from today. Order accordingly. It is further directed that commencing from 1st August 2013, the Accountant General will remit monthly maintenance of Rs. 20. Learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. Anjani Kumar has submitted that such payment will be made by the Project Co-ordinator, Tube Well Wing, Minor Water Resources Department, Vishweshraiya Bhawan, Patna within four weeks from today. Order accordingly. It is further directed that commencing from 1st August 2013, the Accountant General will remit monthly maintenance of Rs. 5000/- to the appellant from the amount of pension payable to the respondent no. 9 regularly every month by 10th day of the next succeeding month. 21. This order for payment of monthly maintenance to the appellant is made subject to the result of the CWJC No. 7951 of 2012 pending before the learned single Judge. 22. After the aforesaid amounts are paid to the appellant, the remaining amount withheld under the order dated 13th February 2012 will be paid to the respondent no. 9. It is further directed that in the event the respondent no. 9 does not furnish the particulars of his family i.e. of the appellant as his wife within four weeks as directed, the entire amount of pension payable to the respondent no. 9 will be withheld till he gives such particulars and the revised Pension Payment Order is made by the Accountant General, as directed. 23. Registry is directed to send copy of this order to the Accountant General, the respondent no. 7 and the Project Co-ordinator, Tube Well Wing, Minor Water Resources Department, Vishweshraiya Bhawan, Patna forthwith.