JUDGMENT : P.K. Lohra, J. Instant special appeal has been filed by the appellants under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules against the impugned judgment dated 26.03.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2741/2015 whereby, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition with cost of Rs. 5,000/-. 2. As per facts of the case, the marriage of Late Bhanwara Ram was solemnized with respondent no. 5 on 05.05.2011 according to Hindu rites and from the said wedlock, male child Bharat was born on 11.09.2014. Bhanwara Ram was working in Central Industrial Security Force as Soldier bearing Service No. G.D. 73550050. He expired in an accident on 06.11.2015. 3. The appellants No. 1 & 2 preferred a writ petition before this Hon'ble with following prayer which reads as under :- "(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent authorities may kindly be directed to grant and release the pensionary and other benefits of Late Bhanwara Ram in favour of the petitioners with all consequential benefits forthwith. (ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent authority may kindly be restrained to release the pensionary and other benefits of late Shri Bhanwara Ram in favour of the respondent no. 4. (iii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, if any amount is released/paid in lieu of pensionary and other benefits on account of death of late Shri Bhanwara Ram in favour of the respondent no. 4 in her bank account bearing No. 2017790237." 4. The writ petition was listed in the Court before the learned Single Judge on 26.03.2015 and after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition with cost of Rs. 5000/- with further direction that family pension shall be released to the respondent no. 4 forthwith in accordance with law. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the judgment impugned is illegal because the learned Single Judge committed an error of law for the reason that marriage of Late Bhanwara Ram was solemnized with respondent no. 4 when she was minor and without disclosing the correct date of birth, the father of respondent no. 4 solemnized marriage of minor daughter keeping the appellants in dark, therefore, conduct of father of respondent no. 4 is questionable. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that respondent no. 4 when she was minor and without disclosing the correct date of birth, the father of respondent no. 4 solemnized marriage of minor daughter keeping the appellants in dark, therefore, conduct of father of respondent no. 4 is questionable. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that respondent no. 4 is not entitled for any pensionary benefit because marriage was solemnized without disclosing the date of birth of respondent no. 4, therefore, the marriage was not in accordance with law and further the respondent no. 5 is in process of again remarriage of respondent no. 4, therefore, obviously, learned single Judge was under obligation to consider the fact that respondent no. 4 is not entitled for pensionary benefits. 7. According to argument of learned counsel for the appellants, the respondent no. 4 is not entitled for pension because at the time of marriage, correct date of birth was not informed by the parents of respondent no. 4 and later on a false birth certificate showing her date of birth as 21.01.93 was produced for taking pensionary benefits, therefore, the impugned judgment may quashed and respondents may be directed to release the pension in favour of appellants. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the facts of the case. The parents are not disputing the marriage of Late Bhanwara Ram with respondent no. 4 on 05.05.2011. They are raising objection for pensionary benefits which is to be paid to respondent no. 4 on the ground that at the time of marriage, she was minor. In our opinion, the ground is not sustainable in law because after marriage, son was born out of wedlock of respondent no. 4 and Late Bhanwara Ram, therefore, with regard to claim of parents for family pension, it can be said that their claim is totally baseless and has no foundation in the eye of law. However, we deem it proper to quash the order to the extent whereby, the learned Single Judge recommended appropriate proceedings under the Child Marriage Act against the appellants no. 1 & 2. Further we are also of the opinion that the FIR which is said to be registered against the respondent no. 4 and 5 is also baseless because with open eyes, the appellants no. 1 & 2 solemnized marriage of deceased Bhanwara Ram with respondent no. 4. 9. 1 & 2. Further we are also of the opinion that the FIR which is said to be registered against the respondent no. 4 and 5 is also baseless because with open eyes, the appellants no. 1 & 2 solemnized marriage of deceased Bhanwara Ram with respondent no. 4. 9. In view of above, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment dated 26.03.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge is hereby maintained to the extent that appellants are not entitled for family pension. However, the order for recommending proper proceedings under the Child Marriage Act against the appellants No. 1 & 2 and imposition of cost of Rs. 5000/- is hereby quashed and set aside.