ORDER : 1. The petitioner has challenged the vires of Rule 69(ii) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Rules of 1996'). The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the official respondents to grant family pension to her and not to respondent No. 7, who is her father. 2. Brief facts of the case are that one Sharda Sharma was working as a Government Teacher Grade-III. She retired on crossing the age of superannuation and thereafter died on 27.12.2012. She left behind her husband, respondent No.7, her daughter Monika Sharma, i.e., the present petitioner, who was aged about 28 years on the date of death of her mother and a son Deepak, who was aged 24 years and stated to be suffering from serious physical limitations. 3. The case of the petitioner is that respondent No. 7 had strained relationship with his wife, the deceased Government Teacher and the two were residing separately since a long time before her death. According to the petitioner, the father took no responsibility of supporting and upbringing the children and the family. It was on account of this reason that the mother had also nominated her two children in the Government records for the purpose of grant of family pension. Ignoring such nomination, the Government authorities had prepared pension payment order in favour of respondent No. 7 after the death of the lady. The petitioner thereupon approached this Court. At one stage, stay was granted against disbursal of pension amount, which was later on vacated. The reply of the official respondents would suggest that a sizable amount of Rs.20,61,199/- has already been paid to respondent No. 7. 4. In this background, the petitioner has challenged the vires of sub-rule (ii) of Rule 69 of the Rules of 1996, which provides that 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. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the rule is arbitrary and unreasonable since it excludes the children of the deceased or pensioner Government servant from claiming family pension even though the eligible family member, namely, the spouse of the deceased or the pensioner had not played any active role in the life of the deceased and thereby neglected all the responsibilities. 5. 5. The official respondents have opposed the petition mainly defending the validity of the Rule. Respondent No. 7 has filed a detailed reply and denied the factual allegations made in the petition. He has denied that he had strained relationship with his wife or had neglected the family. 6. Part C of the Pension Rules pertains to family pension. Rule 61 contained in the said part pertains to admissibility of the pension. Rule 62 pertains to amount of family pension to be paid. Rule 66 contains definition of 'Family' as to include wife, in the case of a male Government servant and husband, in the case of a female Government servant; a judicially separated wife or husband, such separation not being granted on the ground of adultery; son or daughter including widows or divorced daughter till he or she attained the age of 25 years or starts earning a monthly income of Rs. 6,000/-, whichever is earlier and the parents who are wholly dependent upon the Government servant. 7. Rule 67 pertains to condition of grant and provides that the family pension would be admissible to a person referred to in clause (a) to (e) contained in the said Rule. Clause (b) pertains to widowed or divorced daughter of any age till remarriage or till she starts earning a monthly income Rs. 6,000/- per month, whichever is earlier. 8. Rule 69 of the said Rules reads as under: "(i) Except as provided in rule 68, 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. (iii) 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/her has become ineligible for the grant of family pension." 9. As per these provisions, it can be seen that the family pension would be granted to a person who is eligible for the same. The term 'family' has been defined in Rule 66 which includes wife or husband, as the case may be, son or daughter up to a defined age or earning capacity and parents wholly dependent on the Government servant. The term 'family' has been defined in Rule 66 which includes wife or husband, as the case may be, son or daughter up to a defined age or earning capacity and parents wholly dependent on the Government servant. Clause (d) of Rule 67 makes a widowed or divorced daughter of any age eligible for receiving family pension. However, Rule 69 which is specific and provides that except as provided in Rule 68, the family pension shall not be payable to more than one member of the family at the same time. Rule 68 pertains to a case where the family pension is payable to more wives than one. Barring this eventuality, as provided in Clause (i) of Rule 69, family pension would be payable to only one member of the family of the deceased. As per clause (ii), if the deceased leaves behind a widow or widower, the family pension would be payable to such person failing which to the eligible child. This clause thus decides the priority of the family members of the deceased to claim pension. As this rule recognizes right of only one member of the family barring Rule 68 situation, it was necessary to provide the order of priority. As per this Rule, as long as the wife or husband of the deceased is available, no other member of the family can claim family pension. 10. We do not find anything to declare the Rule as unconstitutional. By way of natural consequence of the death of a Government servant or a pensioner, the first right to receive family pension recognized is in the spouse of such a person. There may be some isolated cases where such rule will benefit to a spouse even when the marital relations are strained. However short of divorce, such spouse cannot be disqualified from claiming family pension. As noted, as per clause (b) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 66 even in case of judicial separation, the wife or the husband, as the case may be, would continue to be included within the definition of term 'family'. The petitioner therefore cannot claim family pension in preference over her father. 11. It may be that as per Clause (d) of Rule 67, a widowed or divorced daughter of any age is entitled to seek family pension. The petitioner therefore cannot claim family pension in preference over her father. 11. It may be that as per Clause (d) of Rule 67, a widowed or divorced daughter of any age is entitled to seek family pension. However, this clause has to be read along with Rule 69, as per which, as noted, the family pension can be granted only to one member of the deceased subject to Rule 68 and such one member would be the spouse of the deceased, if alive. This discussion was necessary because the petitioner claims that she was divorced later on under the divorce decree dated 13.10.2017 passed by the Family Court. 12. Merely because the mother of the petitioner had nominated the petitioner and her brother, who was alive at the time of death of the mother (but who subsequently we are informed, had passed away), the same cannot supersede the statutory provisions. As is well settled, nomination of a person in Government records does not substitute the testamentary or intestate succession as the case may be. A reference in this respect can be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vishin N. Khanchandani & Anr. v. Vidya Lachmandas Khanchandani & Anr., reported in AIR 2000 SC 2747 . 13. There is yet another serious obstacle in the petitioner succeeding in the present petition. Her entire foundation of the petition is that her father did not have good relations with her mother. Firstly this allegation has been denied. Secondly, it therefore becomes a highly disputed question of fact. Lastly, the statutory rules do not recognize that a spouse would be disqualified from claiming family pension merely because there was matrimonial strain between the husband and wife. 14. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed.