ORDER : VRS, J. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal directing the South Central Railway to pay family pension to the 1st respondent herein, the Railway Administration has come up with the above writ petition. 2. Heard Mr. Gouri Shankar Sanghi, learned Standing Counsel for the Railways and Smt. A. Padma, learned counsel for the 1st respondent. 3. The husband of the 1st respondent herein, who was working as Senior Section Engineer in the office of the 2nd petitioner, died on 14.08.2011. The 1st respondent made a claim that she is the lawfully wedded wife and is entitled to family pension. 4. It appears that when the employee was in service, he had nominated his son on 25.01.1990 for the purpose of PF, GIS and DCRG. 5. There was no dispute on facts that the deceased employee married one G. Hymavathi on 27.03.1978 and had a son through the said lady. It appears that the deceased employee also filed O.P.No.822 of 2009 against G. Hymavathi for dissolution of marriage. The family Court at Vijayawada granted dissolution of marriage on 07.07.2010. 6. It appears that even before the divorce, the employee made an application to the employer to nominate the 1st respondent herein, whom he married in the meantime. He also produced a marriage certificate dated 21.03.2009. His O.P. for divorce itself was filed, only because the department did not recognise the marriage, claimed by the deceased employee to have been solemnized with the 1st respondent herein. 7. The deceased employee also filed a writ petition in W.P.No.22605 of 2011 seeking a direction to include the name of the 1st respondent as his wife in the service book. But the writ petition was dismissed on 10.08.2011 on account of the availability of alternative remedy before the Central Administrative Tribunal. 8. Therefore, the deceased employee filed O.A.No.802 of 2011, but died on 14.08.2011, resulting in the dismissal of the Original Application. After the dismissal of the Original Application filed by her husband, the 1st respondent filed O.A.No.80 of 2013 before the Tribunal seeking a direction to the Railway Administration to settle the family pension and other benefits. 9. The Railway Administration took a stand that the marriage of the deceased employee with the 1st respondent, was during the subsistence of a valid marriage with another lady and that therefore, the 1st respondent was not entitled to the benefits. 9. The Railway Administration took a stand that the marriage of the deceased employee with the 1st respondent, was during the subsistence of a valid marriage with another lady and that therefore, the 1st respondent was not entitled to the benefits. But the 1st respondent pitched her claim on the basis of a customary divorce, whose truth and validity was disputed by the Railway Administration. 10. But unfortunately all parties seem to have overlooked one important aspect. The deceased employee belonged to a community called Yerukula, which is indicated in the list of Scheduled Tribes. Section 2 (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 makes it clear that the provisions of the said Act will not apply to Scheduled Tribes unless the Government by notification in the official Gazette had directed otherwise. 11. Therefore, the question of prohibition of a second marriage and the question of non-recognition of a customary divorce, traceable to the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 would not apply to the case of the 1st respondent. 12. Therefore, even if we proceed on the presumption that there was no evidence of a customary divorce, the only inference that would follow will be that both the wives will be entitled to family pension and other benefits. 13. Before us the 1st wife has filed an application in W.P.M.P.No.24883 of 2017 seeking to implead herself as a party and also affirming that she would have no objection to the payment of the retirement benefits of her deceased husband to the 1st respondent. It appears that the 1st wifes son is now staking a claim for other benefits such as appointment. Therefore, the 1st wife has affirmed in an affidavit before this Court that she had a customary divorce. 14. In such circumstances, when there is no dispute within the family, it may not be open to the Railway Administration to create a dispute and break the family. Hence the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. 15. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.