JUDGMENT This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Keonjhar in R.F.A. No.53 of 2007 arising out of judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge (S.R. Division), Keonjhar in Civil Suit No.122 of 2005. The appellant as the plaintiff had filed the suit against the defendants-respondents claiming the reliefs as under :- (a) A declaration that the plaintiff as the legal married wife of late Muralidhar Giri, lis entitled to succeed to his estate. (b) A declaration that the defendant No.3 is not the wife of late Muralidhar Giri, and her marriage, if any, with late Muralidhar Giri is illegal and void. (c)For a direction to the defendant nos. 1 and 2 to for payment/disbursement of all dues/service benefits, insurance dues, pension and other dues, arising out of the death of late Muralidhar Giri, the Ex-Hindi Teach Joda High School to the plaintiff. 2.For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarify, the parties hereinafter have been referred to as they have been arraigned in the Court below. 3.The plaintiff’s claim is that she is the legally married wife of late Muralidhar Giri and their marriage was solemnized on 19.07.1979 as per Hindu Rites. Muralidhar was serving as a Hindi Teacher in Joda High School. It is alleged that after their marriage, the plaintiff was subjected to cruelty and thereafter she had to live separately with her sister with the maintenance as awarded by the Court. It is further alleged that defendant no.3 began to reside with Muralidhar Giri. The marriage if any, between them is void. The defendant no.4 and 5 are said to be the sons born out of association of defendant no.3 and Muralidhar. The defendant No.3 and 5 contested the suit and they refuted the entitlement of the plaintiff to the service benefits and other dues as the legal entitlement of the deceased-Muralidhar. 4.The trial Court having framed required issues keeping in view the rival pleadings, came to conclude that the plaintiff is the legally married wife of deceased Murali. In answering other issues, it has been held that defendant no.3 is not legally married wife of Muralidhar, but defendant no.4 and 5 are the sons born to defendant No.3 through Muralidhar. 4.The trial Court having framed required issues keeping in view the rival pleadings, came to conclude that the plaintiff is the legally married wife of deceased Murali. In answering other issues, it has been held that defendant no.3 is not legally married wife of Muralidhar, but defendant no.4 and 5 are the sons born to defendant No.3 through Muralidhar. So, finally viewing the provision of Orissa Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1992, the plaintiff has been held to be entitled to get the family pension .Further, the plaintiff and defendant No.4 and 5 have been jointly held entitled to succeed to the estate and other service benefits of the deceased Muralidhar having equal share. The appellate Court’s other (relevant portion) is as under:- “Unless all these circumstances, it is held that in the dues service benefits, insurance dues, pension and other dues of the deceased and the estate of deceased, the share of plaintiff Nishamani Pradhan @ Giri is 1/3rd and the share of defendant no.4 is 1/3rd and the share of defendant no.5 is 1/3rd. Defendant no.3 Subasini would receive the share of defendants no.4 and 5 i.e., Biswajit Giri and Abhijit Giri on their behalf in trust and would be responsible to pay the same to them and for this purpose she would furnish security in trial Court to the satisfaction of trial Court. The judgment and decree of the Court below is modified and the cross objection No.1 of 2008 is disposed of accordingly. 5.The appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law :- Whether the learned lower appellate Court has committed an illegality in holding that the family pension is to be paid to the appellant along with the respondents 4 and 5, when the law of pension, i.e., Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1992 provides that family pension can be paid only to the wife/widow of the deceased employee and in the instant case, both the Courts below have found that the appellant is the legally married wife of deceased employee, late Muralidhar Giri. 6.Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that now there is no challenge to the finding as regards status of the plaintiff as the legally married wife of Muralidhar. He further submits that the finding of the Court below that the defendant No.4 and 5 are children born out of association of Muralidhar and defendant no.3 is not being assailed. 6.Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that now there is no challenge to the finding as regards status of the plaintiff as the legally married wife of Muralidhar. He further submits that the finding of the Court below that the defendant No.4 and 5 are children born out of association of Muralidhar and defendant no.3 is not being assailed. So the position remains that so far the estate of the deceased Muralidhar is concerned, the plaintiff, defendant no.4 and 5 are having 1/3rd share each. He further contends that even on the above accepted position as regards the status of the parties, the lower appellate Court ought not have passed an order of division of the family pension as above which is wholly contrary to the provision of OSC (Pension) Rules 1992. According to him, so far as the other service benefits are concerned, the relevant Rules will govern the field and the authorities acting thereunder have to proceed for disbursement of the same, keeping in view the findings of the Civil Court that plaintiff as the legally married wife of Muralidhar and defendant no.4 and 5 being the sons of Muralidhar born out of the association of Muralidhar with defendant no. 3 are entitled to get 1/3rd share each over the estate of the deceased. Therefore, he contends that the lower appellate Court did commit error of law by modifying the decree as passed by the trial Court. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1 to 3 fairly submsits that in view of the declared status of the plaintiff and the relationship of defendant no.4 and 5 as the sons of Muralidhar through defendant no.3, so far as payment of pension is concerned the relevant provision of OCS (Pension) Rules 1992 would govern the subject of its disbursement. However, in respect of the estate of the deceased Muralidhar and other entitlements, service dues, benefits on account of service benefits of Muralidhar, the plaintiff, defendant no. 4 and 5 each would be entitled to get 1/3rd share. He also invites the attention of the Court that by now, the defendant no.4 and 5 have already become major. However, in respect of the estate of the deceased Muralidhar and other entitlements, service dues, benefits on account of service benefits of Muralidhar, the plaintiff, defendant no. 4 and 5 each would be entitled to get 1/3rd share. He also invites the attention of the Court that by now, the defendant no.4 and 5 have already become major. 7.The concurrent findings as regards the status of the plaintiff as the married wife of Muralidhar having been rendered by both the Courts below, the plaintiff’s entitlement to the family pension in accordance with the provision under Rule 56 of the Orissa Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1992 as it stands after amendment certainly comes in and the competent authorities under the said rules in view of the declaration of the status of this plaintiff are called upon to act accordingly in the matter of disbursement of the family pension in adherence to the provision of Rule 56 of the said rules. So far as other benefits payable to the deceased plaintiff, defendant nos.4 and 5 in equal shares. Thus, the substantial as framed in the foregoing para, are accordingly answered. In view of the aforesaid, the judgment and decree as modified by the lower appellate Court does not stand to legal scrutiny and thus are set aside and those of the trial Court are restored with above observations. 8.The appeal stands allowed as above and in the peculiar facts and circumstances without cost throughout. Appeal allowed.