JUDGMENT : Meenakshi Madan Rai, J. 1. This Appeal arises out of the Order dated 21.9.2016, passed by the learned District Judge, East Sikkim at Gangtok in Civil Misc. Case (Succession) Case No. 55 of 2014, Smt. Domaki Bhutia & Another vs. General Public & Another. The learned Trial Court after taking into consideration the evidence of the parties ordered as follows; “34. It is therefore, ordered that the Petitioner (on one part) and opposite party No.2 (on the other part) shall be entitled to equal share (on 50:50 basis) to the family pension, leave encashment, GPF and other securities left behind in the name of Late Tempo Rapgay Bhutia.” Aggrieved by the aforesaid Order, this Appeal assails it. 2. The parties herein shall be referred to in terms of their appearance before the learned Trial Court. 3. The facts briefly stated are that the Petitioner No.1 is the wife and the Petitioner No.2, the son of late Tempo Rapgay Bhutia, while the Opposite Party No. 2 claimed to be the second wife of the said deceased. The case of the Petitioners No. 1 and 2 was that all documents, such as Voter’s Identity Card, Aadhar Card, Certificate of Identification and family details as recorded in the Office of the deceased, reveal that the Petitioner No.1 is the wife of late Tempo Rapgay Bhutia, while the Opposite Party No.2 was found to be the wife of one Chochung Bhutia. Therefore, the Petitioners No. 1 and 2 were entitled to the Family Pension, Leave Encashment, GPF and other Securities left behind by the deceased and the Opposite Party No. 2 had no share in it. The Opposite Party No.2 resisted the contentions claiming that she was married to the deceased in 2009, as per the customary rituals prevalent amongst the Bhutia community and was equally entitled to the pension, debts and securities left behind by the deceased. From the evidence led by the parties and from the admission of the Petitioner No.1 thereof, the learned Trial Court reached a finding that besides the Petitioner No.1, the Opposite Party No.2 was also the wife of the deceased Tempo Rapgay Bhutia, although, she had previously been married to one Chochung Bhutia from whom she had not obtained a divorce. From the evidence led by the parties and from the admission of the Petitioner No.1 thereof, the learned Trial Court reached a finding that besides the Petitioner No.1, the Opposite Party No.2 was also the wife of the deceased Tempo Rapgay Bhutia, although, she had previously been married to one Chochung Bhutia from whom she had not obtained a divorce. Similarly, the Petitioner No.1 had also been married to one Gyamtso Bhutia @ Khiluk Bhutia, before her marriage to the deceased but she too did not have any decree of divorce, from her first husband. That, in any event both the Petitioner No.1 and the Opposite Party No.2 were protected under Section 2(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, both being members of the Scheduled Tribe. 4. The finding of the learned Trial Court that both the Petitioner No.1 and the Opposite Party No.2 are the wives of the deceased is not being assailed herein, the only grievance of the Petitioner No.1 is that the debts and securities ought to have been equally divided between the Petitioners No.1 and 2 and the Opposite Party No.2 and not between the Petitioners No.1 and 2 as one part and the Opposite Party No.2 as another part, as ordered by the learned Trial Court. 5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners stressed on this aspect and submitted that this Court grant the Petitioners No.1 and 2 also an equal share with the Opposite Party No.2. 6. Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No.2, however contended that there was no error in the Order of the learned Trial Court. 7. I have heard the rival contentions of learned Counsel at length and given due consideration. I have also perused the appended documents and records of the case. 8. What falls for determination is; Whether the Petitioner No.1, Petitioner No.2 and the Opposite Party No.2 are entitled to 1/3rd share each, of the Pension and debts and securities left behind by the deceased? 9. It would be apposite firstly to refer to the Sikkim Services (Pension) Rules, 1990 with Sikkim Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1985 [Second Edition] 2014. Rule 40 deals with Family Pension. The relevant provisions of this Rule are extracted herein below for clarity. “40. Family Pension. (1) …………………………………………………………………………….… (2) ………………………………………………………………………….…… (3) …………………………………………………………………………...… (4) …………………………………………………………………..……….... (5) .………………………………………………………………………………. 9. It would be apposite firstly to refer to the Sikkim Services (Pension) Rules, 1990 with Sikkim Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1985 [Second Edition] 2014. Rule 40 deals with Family Pension. The relevant provisions of this Rule are extracted herein below for clarity. “40. Family Pension. (1) …………………………………………………………………………….… (2) ………………………………………………………………………….…… (3) …………………………………………………………………………...… (4) …………………………………………………………………..……….... (5) .………………………………………………………………………………. (6) (a)(i) Where the Family Pension is payable to more widows than one, the Family Pension shall be paid to the widows in equal shares. ………………………………………………………………………………..……………. (7) (i) Except as provided in sub-rule (6), the Family Pension shall not be payable to more than one member of the family at the same time. (ii) If 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. ………………………………………………………………………………………………” Thus, from the above Rules, it is manifest that the Family Pension shall not be payable to more than one member of the family at the same time, except, as provided in sub-rule(6)(a)(i), i.e. where the deceased has left behind two widows. In such a situation both widows are entitled to an equal share of the Family Pension. In keeping with the Rule, the minor child is not eligible for Family Pension. 10. That having been said, it would now be essential to address the question as to; Whether the minor child would be entitled to equal share in the debts and securities left behind by the deceased? 11. In Bulu Das & Ors. vs. Moni Das & Anr., 2003 (3) GLT 400, the Gauhati High Court while deciding a matter under Section 10 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, for distribution of property amongst heirs, a question arose as to whether the children from the void second marriage are entitled to succeed to the property of the deceased. Following the ratiocination in Rameshwari Devi v. State of Bihar, AIR 2000 SC 735 , it was held that the children of the said void second marriage are entitled to an equal share with the first wife of the deceased and her children but the second wife would not be entitled to any share. Following the ratiocination in Rameshwari Devi v. State of Bihar, AIR 2000 SC 735 , it was held that the children of the said void second marriage are entitled to an equal share with the first wife of the deceased and her children but the second wife would not be entitled to any share. In Rameshwari Devi, (Supra) referred to by the Gauhati High Court, the Supreme Court had held that the marriage of the deceased with his second wife was in contravention of Clause 1 of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and was thus a void marriage, however under Section 16 of the same Act, the children of the void marriage are legitimate. Under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 the property of a male Hindu, dying intestate, devolves firstly on heirs in Clause (1) which include widow and son. Among the widow and son, they all get shares but the second wife could not be described as the widow of the deceased, her marriage to him being void. But, the sons of the deceased and his second wife being the legitimate sons of the deceased, would be entitled to his property in equal shares, along with that of the first wife and the son born from the first marriage of the deceased. 12. Maintaining the ratiocination of the aforesaid decision but not losing sight of the fact that the Petitioner No.1 and the Opposite Party No. 2, belong to the Scheduled Tribe and are under the umbrella of Section 2(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, it would be in the fitness of things to state that the Petitioner No. 1, Petitioner No. 2 and the Opposite Party No. 2 are entitled to an equal share each of the debts and securities left behind by the deceased. In other words, each of them are entitled to 1/3rd share of the debts and securities of the deceased. In fact a perusal of the Certificate issued by the Senior Accounts Officer, Finance and Pension Department, Government of Sikkim, dated 13.9.2013, would clearly reveal this aspect, while at the same time indicating that the Pension would be 50% each for the Petitioner No. 1 and the Opposite Party No.2. 13. In fact a perusal of the Certificate issued by the Senior Accounts Officer, Finance and Pension Department, Government of Sikkim, dated 13.9.2013, would clearly reveal this aspect, while at the same time indicating that the Pension would be 50% each for the Petitioner No. 1 and the Opposite Party No.2. 13. In the end result, it is ordered that; (i) The Petitioner No.1 and the Opposite Party No.2 are entitled to 50% each of the Pension amount of the deceased, Tempo Rapgay Bhutia. (ii) That, the Petitioner No.1, the Petitioner No.2 and the Opposite Party No.2 are entitled to a 1/3rd share each of the debts and securities of the deceased, Tempo Rapgay Bhutia. 14. Hence, the impugned Order of the learned Trial Court is set aside and Appeal is allowed. 15. A Certificate be granted by the learned District Judge as ordered hereinabove, on application being made thereto, in super session of the Certificate, if any, already granted. 16. No order as to costs. 17. Records of the learned Trial Court be remitted forthwith.