JUDGMENT : 1. Respondent No.4 has filed the affidavit on 07.02.2019 stating therein that the appellant and (L) Kulendra Chandra Keot vide agreement executed by them of their own will dated 15.08.1999 have separated from each other with a further stipulation they will not claim as husband and wife. Appellant will not claim any monetary assistance for herself, un-married daughter and two minor sons as those will be looked after by her. After execution of the agreement, appellant married one person named Biki of Sipajhar, Mangaldoi and lived together as husband and wife whereas, respondent No.4 got married to (L) Kulendra Chandra Keot in the year 2002. Family pension has been sanctioned in favour of respondent No.4 as she was the nominee nominated by deceased in the service record. 2. Appellant in her affidavit has stated that she got married with (L) Kulendra Chandra Keot as per the prevailing Khasi custom known as "Shongkha" in the State of Meghalaya and as such were recognized as husband and wife. Even otherwise their position having been living together and having procured children is ample proof of their marriage. In support whereof has referred to the judgments rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2010) 9 SCC 209 , 1992 Supp (2) SCC 304 and (1978) 3 SCC 527 . 3. Further it is stated that the marriage can be dissolved by death of either party or by decree of the court dissolving the marriage. Marriage is governed by Indian Divorce Act, 1869 for the purpose of divorce. Execution of the agreement in the year 1999 is denied. 4. Appellant had filed writ petition claiming therein that the marriage of respondent No.4 being second marriage solemnized during the subsistence of first marriage, as such is void therefore, respondent No.4 is not entitled to family pension. 5. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition observing therein that the matter involved disputed questions of facts, aggrieved whereof, instant appeal has been filed. 6. Since the writ petition was disposed of at the threshold stage, it is in view of that the appellant as well as respondent No.4 were afforded an opportunity of filing their respective affidavits which they have filed. 7. Respondent No.4 has not placed on record any proof regarding contract of marriage by the appellant with Biki of Sipajhar, nor, particulars of that person have been given. 7. Respondent No.4 has not placed on record any proof regarding contract of marriage by the appellant with Biki of Sipajhar, nor, particulars of that person have been given. In case any proof in that context is produced for prima facie satisfaction, then, appellant cannot claim that the agreement providing for their separation was not executed nor had no legal sanctity. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 seeks some time to have instructions in this behalf and to file an additional affidavit so as to indicate the clear picture about the marriage of the appellant with Biki of Sipajhar after separation from (L) Kulendra Chandra Keot. As prayed for, three weeks time is granted. 9. List again after three weeks.