JUDGMENT : The unsuccessful plaintiffs have preferred this regular second appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 25th April 2014 passed by the court of Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Madhugiri in O.S.No.344/2012, which has been confirmed by the court of Additional Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Madhugiri, in R.A.No.40/2014 by its judgment and decree dated 10.10.2014. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the appeal are referred to as per their rankings given before the trial court. 3. Brief facts of the case that would be relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are: The plaintiffs had filed a suit in O.S.No.344/2012 before the court of Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Madhugiri (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court") seeking for a declaration that the first plaintiff is the legitimate son of deceased T.N.Veerakyathaiah and he is entitled for the benefits on account of death of T.N.Veerakyathaiah along with the second plaintiff including pension amount and permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.4 from drawing the pension amount and other benefits from the other defendants ignoring the rights of plaintiffs and for a prohibitory order restraining defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 5 from making payment of any pension amount and other benefits to the fourth defendant till the disposal of the suit. 4. It is the case of the plaintiffs that late T.N.Veerakyathaiah had married the fourth defendant Puttarangamma and from the said wedlock, they have children, who are married and residing separately. The fourth defendant deserted her husband and started living separately. T.N.Veerakyathaiah there afterwards married the second plaintiff Rangamma and from the said wedlock, the first plaintiff was born. During his lifetime, T.N.Veerakyathaiah was working as a Village Accountant in the Revenue Department and after his retirement, he was drawing pension from the Karnataka State Government. T.N.Veerakyathaiah died on 30.12.2011. After his death, the fourth defendant made a claim for pension and other death benefits of late T.N.Veerakyathaiah suppressing the fact of his second marriage with the second plaintiff. It is under these circumstances, the plaintiffs had filed O.S.No.344/2012 wherein a claim was made by the first plaintiff for half share in the pension amount while remaining half was required to be shared equally by the second plaintiff and the fourth defendant. 5. It is under these circumstances, the plaintiffs had filed O.S.No.344/2012 wherein a claim was made by the first plaintiff for half share in the pension amount while remaining half was required to be shared equally by the second plaintiff and the fourth defendant. 5. After service of suit summons, the defendants had entered appearance and the fourth defendant who is the wife of late T.N.Veerakyathaiah had filed written statement denying the plaint averments. It was contended by the fourth defendant that late T.N.Veerakyathaiah had made the fourth defendant as nominee for all his benefits including the death benefits and her name is also found in the pension book of late T.N.Veerakyathaiah. The marriage between the second plaintiff and late T.N.Veerakyathaiah was denied and it was also denied that the first plaintiff was born from the said wedlock. 6. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues: "1. Whether the plaintiff proves that 2nd T.N.Veerakyathaiah got married the 1st plaintiff about 22 years back and plaintiff is born out of their wedlock? 2. Whether plaintiffs prove that defendant no.4 is no way concerned with T.N.Veerakyathaiah, as she has deserted T.N.Veerakyathaiah during his old age and was not living with T.N.Veerakyathaiah as his wife? 3. Whether plaintiff prove that the 4th defendant suppressing the facts of plaintiff no.1 being the son of deceased 4. Whether plaintiffs prove that he is entitled for half share in the pension amount and death benefit and 2nd and 4th defendant are entitled for remaining half share? 5. Whether 4th defendant proves that she being nominated by deceased T.N.Veerakyathaiah as nominee in his service records, she alone entitled for all the benefits, in exclusion of plaintiffs? T.N.Veerakyathaiah has approached the defendants and has made claims for pension and death benefits? 6. Whether 4th defendant proves that the 2nd plaintiff is not the wife and 1st plaintiff is not the son of T.N.Veerakyathaiah? 7. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for the relief sought? 8. What order or decree?" 7. During the course of trial, the second plaintiff had examined herself as PW-1 and another witness was examined as PW-2. Seven documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P7 on behalf of the plaintiffs. In support of defendants, defendant No.4 was examined as DW-1 and one document was marked as Ex.D1. 8. 8. What order or decree?" 7. During the course of trial, the second plaintiff had examined herself as PW-1 and another witness was examined as PW-2. Seven documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P7 on behalf of the plaintiffs. In support of defendants, defendant No.4 was examined as DW-1 and one document was marked as Ex.D1. 8. After completion of recording the evidence, the trial court heard the arguments of the contesting parties and by its judgment and decree dated 25.04.2014 dismissed the suit insofar it relates to claim with regard to pension and other death benefits of late T.N.Veerakyathaiah while declaring that the plaintiff No.1 was the son born out of the void marriage between plaintiff No.2 and T.N.Veerakyathaiah. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.344/2012, plaintiffs had filed R.A.No.40/2014 and the said appeal was dismissed by the first appellate court by its judgment and decree dated 10th October 2014. It is under these circumstances, the plaintiffs are before this court in this regular second appeal. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs submits that since the trial court had given a finding that the first plaintiff is a child born from the void marriage between second plaintiff and late T.N.Veerakyathaiah, having regard to Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the first plaintiff is entitled for a share in the pension amount of late T.N.Veerakyathaiah. He has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rameshwari Devi -vs-State of Bihar and Others, (2000) 2 SCC 431 in support of his contention and submits that though in view of Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the marriage between second plaintiff and late T.N.Veerakyathaiah may be a void marriage but having regard to Section 16 of the said Act, children born from such void marriage are legitimate children. 10. Per contra, learned HCGP, who appears for respondent nos.1 to 3, has argued in support of the impugned judgment and decree and submits that having regard to the provisions of the Karnataka Government Servants' (Family Pension) Rules, 2002 (for short "the Rules of 2002"), the plaintiffs are not entitled for the reliefs and prays to dismiss the appeal. 11. I have carefully considered the rival arguments addressed on both sides and also perused the material evidence available on record. 12. 11. I have carefully considered the rival arguments addressed on both sides and also perused the material evidence available on record. 12. It is the admitted case of the plaintiffs that fourth defendant is the first wife of late T.N.Veerakyathaiah. The second plaintiff claims to be the second wife of late T.N.Veerakyathaiah and said marriage admittedly had taken place during the subsistence of the first marriage of late T.N.Veerakyathaiah with fourth defendant Puttarangamma. The first plaintiff is born to the second plaintiff from her wedlock with late T.N.Veerakyathaiah. The trial court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record has held that the first plaintiff is born to the second plaintiff and late T.N.Veerakyathaiah from a void marriage in view of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act. There is no dispute that in view of Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, children born from a void marriage are also considered as legitimate children and are entitled for a share in the estate of their father along with the first wife and children born to her. 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rameshwari Devi (supra) appreciating this aspect of the matter has held that children born from such void marriages are entitled to family pension but not the second wife/widow. The principle laid down in Rameshwari Devi's case by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is undisputed and I am in respectful agreement with the same. However, the said judgment would not be applicable to the facts of the present case for the reason that under the provisions of the Rules of 2002, the children are not entitled for pension during the life time of widow or widower, as the case may be. Rule 8 and 9 of the Rules of 2002 read as follows: "8. In these rules unless the context otherwise requires 'family' means the following relatives of a Government servant.- a) Wife, or as the case may be, husband; b) A judicially separated wife or husband where such separation is not being granted on the ground of adultery and the person surviving was not held guilty of committing adultery: Provided that the authority competent to sanction the family pension, may in suitable cases, for reasons to be recorded in writing, pay the minor children in preference to the widower or widow who is judicially separated. c) Son who has not attained the age of 18 years and unmarried daughter who has not attained the age of 21 years including such son and daughter adopted legally before the date of retirement. d) For the purpose of these rules, a divorced wife or husband of the Government servant shall be deemed to have predeceased the Government servant and shall not be eligible for family pension under these rules, but the minor children born to such Government servant from the divorced wife or husband before the divorce shall, however, be eligible for the share of the family pension under these rules in the manner indicated under Rule 9. 9. Family pension admissible under these rules shall be sanctioned and paid to the family of the deceased Government servant in the following order.- a) Where the Government servant dies leaving him or her surviving a widow or widower to such widow or as the case may be widower of the Government servant upto the date of death or remarriage, whichever is earlier. Note.-Widower means the husband of the deceased Government servant, provided he has no other wife living. A Government servant/pensioner may be paid family pension under this scheme in addition to his/her pay or pension. b) Where a female Government servant or a male Government servant dies leaving a judicially separated wife or husband without any child, the family pension in respect of the deceased shall be payable to the person surviving: Provided that where the judicial separation is granted on the ground of adultery and the death of a Government servant takes place during the subsistence of such judicial separation the family pension shall not be payable to the person surviving who was held guilty of committing adultery. c) Where the Government servant dies leaving him or her surviving no widow or widower, family pension should be payable to the minor children in the order of their birth and the younger of them will not be eligible for family pension unless the elder next above him or her has become ineligible for the grant of family pension. c) Where the Government servant dies leaving him or her surviving no widow or widower, family pension should be payable to the minor children in the order of their birth and the younger of them will not be eligible for family pension unless the elder next above him or her has become ineligible for the grant of family pension. d)(1) Where the deceased Government servant's widow or widower, to whom the family pension is sanctioned under sub-rule (a), dies or remarries, the family pension shall thereafter to be paid to the minor children of the deceased Government servant, if any, in the order of their birth on the date of death or remarriage of such widow or widower and the younger of them will not be eligible for family pension unless the elder next above him/her has become ineligible for the grant of family pension: Provided further that, if the son or daughter of a Government servant is suffering from any disorder or disability of mind or is physically crippled or disabled including blindness so as to render him or her unable to earn a living even after attaining the age of 18 years in the case of the son or 21 years in the case of daughter, the family pension shall be payable to such son or daughter for life subject to the following conditions.- (i) If such son or daughter is one among two or more children of the Government servant, the family pension shall be initially payable to the minor children in the order setout under this rule until the last minor child attains the age of 18 or 21 years, as the case may be and thereafter the family pension shall be resumed in favour of the son or daughter suffering from disorder or disability of mind or who is physically crippled or disabled and shall be payable to him/her for life. (ii) If there are more such children than one suffering from disorder or disability of mind or who are physically crippled or disabled, the family pension shall be paid in the order of their birth and the younger of them will get the family pension only after the elder next above him or her ceases to be eligible. (ii) If there are more such children than one suffering from disorder or disability of mind or who are physically crippled or disabled, the family pension shall be paid in the order of their birth and the younger of them will get the family pension only after the elder next above him or her ceases to be eligible. (iii) The family pension shall be paid to such son or daughter through the guardian as if he or she were a minor, except in case of the physically crippled son or daughter who has attained the majority. (iv) Before allowing the family pension for life to any such son or daughter, the sanctioning authority shall satisfy that the handicap is of such a nature as to prevent him or her from earning his or her livelihood and the same shall be evidenced by a certificate in Form E obtained from a medical officer not below the rank of District Surgeon setting out, as far as possible, the exact mental or physical condition of the child. Provided that family pension is not admissible to cases of diabetes, dwarfism etc., which cannot be termed as disabilities as these do not come in the way of earning livelihood as in the case of mental imbalance, physical crippleness etc., since Government servants suffering from diabetes etc., continue to discharge their duties as Government servants. v) (1) The person receiving the family pension as guardian of such son or daughter or such son or daughter not receiving the family pension through a guardian shall produce every three years a certificate in Form E from a medical officer not below the rank of a District Surgeon to the effect that he or she continues to suffer from disorder or disability of mind or continues to be physically crippled or disabled. 2) Family pension to the children shall be payable in the order of their birth and the younger of them will not be eligible for family pension unless the elder next above him or her has become ineligible for the grant of family pension. 3) Where the family pension is payable to minor children it may be paid through their natural guardians. In disputed cases, the payment will be made through a legal guardian. 3) Where the family pension is payable to minor children it may be paid through their natural guardians. In disputed cases, the payment will be made through a legal guardian. e) If a Government servant had married more than one wife, with the permission of the Government under Rule 28 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966, the family pension shall be divided among them equally, the share in respect of each wife shall be paid to them. If she is not alive, it shall be paid to her minor children in the manner indicated in clause (d). When the last member eligible to receive such a share in respect of a wife ceases to be eligible to receive it, such share shall be divided equally among all the other members of the family eligible for family pension on that date. This process of transfer by division among the other beneficiaries shall continue till the last beneficiary of the family ceases to be eligible for family pension. f) (i) If a person, who in the event of death of a Government servant while in service, or after retirement is eligible to receive family pension under these rules, is charged with the serious crime or for abetting the commission of such a crime, the claim of such a person, including other eligible member or members of the family to receive the family pension, shall remain suspended till the conclusion of the criminal proceedings instituted against him. (ii) If, no conclusion of the criminal proceedings referred to in sub-clause (i) above, the person concerned.- (a) Is convicted for the serious crime or abetting in the commission of such a crime such a person shall be debarred from receiving family pension which shall be payable to the other eligible member or members of the family; (b) Is acquitted of the charge of the serious crime, the family pension shall be payable to such a person. g) Where the family pension is payable to twin children it shall be paid to each child in equal shares." 14. A reading of the aforesaid rules makes it clear that sanction of pension to the family of the deceased government servant in the State of Karnataka has to be on the order of priority as mentioned in Rule 9 of the Rules of 2002. A reading of the aforesaid rules makes it clear that sanction of pension to the family of the deceased government servant in the State of Karnataka has to be on the order of priority as mentioned in Rule 9 of the Rules of 2002. The term "family" referred in Rule 9 gets its definition from Rule 8 of the Rules 2002 and reading of the said Rule would make it clear that "family" means wife/husband, minor sons and unmarried daughters of the deceased Government servant, who has not attained the age of 21 years. They are the beneficiaries of the family pension sanctioned under Rule 9 to the persons mentioned therein in the order of priority. Rule 8 provides with regard to the persons who are entitled for the benefits of family pension while Rule 9 provides with regard to sanction of the family pension and it also clearly states the sanction of family pension is to be made in the order of priority. A reading of Rule 9 makes it clear that the family pension is required to be sanctioned in the order of priority as mentioned therein and therefore, all the members of the family of deceased government servant would not be eligible for the benefit of family pension immediately after his/her death. A conjoint reading of these two rules would make it clear that the family pension sanctioned under Rule 9 is for the benefit of the family as provided under Rule 8. Therefore, these rules would make it very clear that immediately after the death of a Government servant, the surviving spouse of such government servant is entitled for the family pension and it is only in the case of death or re-marriage of said spouse, the children become entitled for the family pension. The rules further provide for priority even amongst the children. If there are two minor children, the family pension is required to be sanctioned to the elder amongst them till he reaches the age of majority and it is only thereafter the second son would be entitled for the family pension. Similarly in the case of daughters, the elder daughter would be eligible for family pension till she attains the age of 21 years or gets married whichever is earlier and only thereafter the next daughter would be entitled for family pension. Similarly in the case of daughters, the elder daughter would be eligible for family pension till she attains the age of 21 years or gets married whichever is earlier and only thereafter the next daughter would be entitled for family pension. This scheme of payment of pension in the order of priority to the members of the family is framed by the legislature keeping in mind the overall welfare of the family of deceased government servant. The said rule also provides for sanction of family pension in the order of priority to the children of the government servant suffering from disorder or disability and in deserving case, through natural guardian or legal guardian. 15. It is no doubt true that the wife and children of a government servant including the children born out of a void marriage are entitled for family pension, but the sanction of family pension has to be in accordance with Rule 9 which provides an order of priority. The sanction/payment of family pension to the children, who are entitled for the same in view of Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act is, therefore, subject to the order of priority as mentioned in Rule 9 of the Rules of 2002. In the case on hand, admittedly the first wife of late T.N.Veerakyathaiah viz., the fourth defendant herein is alive. Having regard to the same, neither her children nor the children born from the second marriage/void marriage are entitled to claim family pension during her life time. 16. Under the circumstances, the courts below were fully justified in refusing to grant the relief to the plaintiffs with regard to their claim for pensionary benefits of deceased T.N.Veerakyathaiah. The judgments and decree passed by the courts below do not suffer from any irregularity or illegality nor the said judgments and decree can be termed as perverse in nature. On an overall appreciation of the arguments addressed on behalf of the appellants and having regard to the oral and documentary evidence available on record, I am of the considered view that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this regular second appeal and accordingly, decline to admit this appeal. The regular second appeal is, therefore, dismissed. In view of disposal of the appeal, the pending I.A. does not survive for consideration. Hence, it stands disposed of.