JUDGMENT : PANKAJ BHATIA, J. 1. Heard Shri Ravi Shankar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Prashant Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for respondents/Bank. 2. Present petition has been filed stating that the husband of the petitioner was working with the respondents-Bank on a Class IV post as a Peon and died on 23.11.2017. Subsequent to the death, the petitioner moved an application for release of the retiral dues, however, the same has been denied and the petitioner was called upon to obtain a Succession Certificate. In pursuance to the said condition, the petitioner filed proceedings before Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pratapgarh being M.N.R. No. 48 of 2019. The said suit considered the fact that the petitioner was the first wife of Late Tilak Dhari Singh who once again married during the lifetime of the petitioner with one lady called Uma Devi. The M.N.R. No. 48 of 2019 considered the respective claims of the petitioner as well as the children of Uma Devi and gave a categorical finding with regard to the dues holding that the petitioner alongwith the children born out of the marriage of Late Tilak Dhari Singh and Uma Devi would be entitled to the retiral dues in the proportion as determined by the Court. 3. The dispute, subsequent to the filing of the suit, has arisen on account of claim of the petitioner for payment of family pension. The respondents/Bank, on a claim being made by the petitioner, refused to grant the relief of payment of family pension to the petitioner solely on the ground that in the M.N.R. No. 48 of 2019, the issue with regard to family pension was not decided by the Court and thus, placing reliance on provisions of Regulation 38(6)(d) of Baroda U.P. Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Pension Regulations 2018’), the petitioner was called upon to obtain a fresh Succession Certificate in respect of the claim of the family pension. The petitioner has challenged the said decision of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent/Bank after having obtained instructions argues that the payment of family pension is to be determined in terms of the guidelines as provided under Regulation 38(6)(d) of the Pension Regulations, 2018. The petitioner has challenged the said decision of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent/Bank after having obtained instructions argues that the payment of family pension is to be determined in terms of the guidelines as provided under Regulation 38(6)(d) of the Pension Regulations, 2018. He further argues that the children born out of a void marriage would be legitimate and would be entitled to succeed to the estate as has been determined through the litigation in between the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner rebuts the said argument by arguing that the law with regard to second marriage is fairly well settled and the second marriage of Uma Devi with the husband of the petitioner was null and void by virtue of Section 5 and Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 6. In the light of the said submission, this Court is to decide the import of Regulation 38(6)(d) of the Pension Regulations, 2018. Regulation 38 of the Pension Regulations, 2018 framed by the Bank provides for the manner of payment of family pension. Regulation 2(n) of the Pension Regulations, 2018 defines ‘family’ which reads as under: “2. Definitions: (1) In these regulations, unless the context otherwise requires: “............ (n) “family” in relation to an employee means: (i) wife in the case of a male employee or husband in the case of a female employee (whether the marriage took place before or after retirement). (ii) a judicially separated wife or husband, such separation not being granted on the ground of adultery and the person surviving was not held guilty of committing adultery. (iii) (A) unmarried sons or unmarried daughters (born before or after retirement including those adopted) who have not attained the age of twenty-five years. (B) unmarried sons or unmarried daughters suffering from any disorder or disability of mind or physically crippled. (iv) widowed daughters or divorced daughters (born before or after retirement) without any age restriction. (v) parents who were wholly dependent on the employee when such employee was alive, subject to the following conditions: (A) the deceased employee had left behind neither a widow or widower nor an eligible son or daughter or a widowed or divorced daughter and that the earnings of the parents is less than two thousand five hundred and fifty rupees per month. (B) where the deceased employee has left behind a childless widow, they become eligible for family pension only after the death of childless widow or when her independent income from all other sources becomes equal to or higher than two thousand five hundred and fifty rupees per month.” Regulation 38(6)(d) with which the issue raised in the present case is concerned, is quoted herein-below: 38. Payment of family pension: “(6).............. (d) (i) Where family pension is payable to more widows than one, the family pension shall be paid to the widows in equal shares. (ii) On the death of a widow, her share of the family pension shall become payable to her eligible child: Provided that if the widow is not survived by any child, her share of the family pension shall not lapse but shall be payable to the other widows in equal shares, or if there is only one such other widow, in full, to her. (iii) Where the deceased employee or pensioner is survived by a widow but has left behind eligible child or children from another wife who is not alive, the eligible child or children shall be entitled to the share of family pension which the mother would have received if she had been alive at the time of the death of the employee or pensioner: Provided that on the share or shares of family pension payable to such a child or children or to a widow or widows ceasing to be payable, such share or shares shall not lapse, but shall be payable to the other widow or widows or to the other child or children otherwise eligible, in equal shares, or if there is only one widow or child, in full, to such widow or child. (iv) Where the deceased employee or pensioner is survived by a widow but has left behind eligible child or children from a divorced wife or wives, such eligible child or children shall be entitled to the share of family pension which the mother would have received at the time of death of the employee or pensioner had she not been so divorced: Provided that on the share or shares of family pension payable to such a child or children or to a widow ceasing to be payable, such share or shares, shall not lapse, but shall be payable to the other widow or widows or to the other child or children otherwise eligible, in equal shares, or if there is only one widow or child, in full, to such widow or child.” Learned counsel for the respondents at this stage argues that Regulation 38(6)(d) deals with the issue, however, Regulation 49 which deals with nomination and Regulation 54 which is residuary provision, would also have some bearing in the issue raised in the present petition. Regulation 49 and 54 are quoted herein below: “49. Nomination: (1) The trust shall allow every employee governed by these regulations to make a nomination conferring on one or more persons the right to receive the amount of pension benefits under these regulations in the event of his death before that amount becomes payable or, having become payable, has not been paid and such nomination shall be made in such form as may be specified by the Bank from time to time. (2) If any employee nominates more than one person under sub-regulation (1), he shall, in his nomination, specify the amount or share payable to each of the nominees in such a manner as to cover the whole of the amount of the pension benefits that may be payable in the event of his death. (3) A nomination made by an employee may, at any time, be modified or revoked by him after giving a written notice to the trust of his intention of doing so in such form as the Bank may from time to time specify. (4) A nomination or its revocation or its modification shall take effect to the extent it is valid on the date on which it is revised by the trust.” “54. (4) A nomination or its revocation or its modification shall take effect to the extent it is valid on the date on which it is revised by the trust.” “54. Residuary provisions - In case of doubt, in the matter of application of these regulations, regard may be had to the corresponding provisions of Central Civil Services Rules, 1972 or Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981 applicable for Central Government employees with such exceptions and modifications as the Bank, after consultation with Bank of Baroda being the Sponsor Bank and the National Bank and with the previous sanction of the Central Government, may from time to time, determine.” 7. It is well settled that family pension does not form a part of the estate and is payable to only the persons who are named in the regulations/rules governing the grant of family pension. The said issue was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Violet Issaac and Others vs. Union of India and Others, (1991) 1 SCC 725 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “4. The dispute between the parties relates to gratuity, provident fund, family pension and other allowances, but this Court while issuing notice to the respondents confined the dispute only to family pension. We would therefore deal with the question of family pension only. Family Pension Rules, 1964 provide for the sanction of family pension to the survivors of a Railway employee. Rule 801 provides that family pension shall be granted to the widow/widower and where there is no widow/widower to the minor children of a Railway servant who may have died while in service. Under the Rules son of the deceased is entitled to family pension until he attains the age of 25 years, an unmarried daughter is also entitled to family pension till she attains the age of 25 years or gets married, whichever is earlier. The Rules do not provide for payment of family pension to brother or any other family member or relation of the deceased Railway employee. The Family Pension Scheme under the Rules is designed to provide relief to the widow and children by way of compensation for the untimely death of the deceased employee. The Rules do not provide for any nomination with regard to family pension, instead the Rules designate the persons who are entitled to receive the family pension. The Family Pension Scheme under the Rules is designed to provide relief to the widow and children by way of compensation for the untimely death of the deceased employee. The Rules do not provide for any nomination with regard to family pension, instead the Rules designate the persons who are entitled to receive the family pension. Thus, no other person except those designated under the Rules are entitled to receive family pension. The Family Pension Scheme confers monetary benefit on the wife and children of the deceased Railway employee, but the employee has no title to it. The employee has no control over the family pension as he is not required to make any contribution to it. The family pension scheme is in the nature of a welfare scheme framed by the Railway administration to provide relief to the widow and minor children of the deceased employee. Since, the Rules do not provide for nomination of any person by the deceased employee during his lifetime for the payment of family pension, he has no title to the same. Therefore, it does not form part of his estate enabling him to dispose of the same by testamentary disposition. 5. In Jodh Singh vs. Union of India, (1980) 4 SCC 306 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 549, this Court on an elaborate discussion held that family pension is admissible on account of the status of a widow and not on account of the fact that there was some estate of the deceased which devolved on his death to the widow. The court observed: “Where a certain benefit is admissible on account of status and a status that is acquired on the happening of certain event, namely, on becoming a widow on the death of the husband, such pension by no stretch of imagination could ever form part of the estate of the deceased. If it did not form part of the estate of the deceased it could never be the subject matter of testamentary disposition.” The court further held that what was not payable during the lifetime of the deceased over which he had no power of disposition could not form part of his estate. If it did not form part of the estate of the deceased it could never be the subject matter of testamentary disposition.” The court further held that what was not payable during the lifetime of the deceased over which he had no power of disposition could not form part of his estate. Since the qualifying event occurs on the death of the deceased for the payment of family pension, monetary benefit of family pension cannot form part of the estate of the deceased entitling him to dispose of the same by testamentary disposition.” 8. The said judgment was followed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nitu vs. Sheela Rani and Others, (2016) 16 SCC 229 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “17. It is pertinent to note that in this case the pension is to be given under the provisions of the Scheme and therefore, only the person who is entitled to get the pension as per the Scheme would get it. Similar issue had arisen before this Court in Violet Issaac vs. Union of India, (1991) 1 SCC 725 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 551 and after considering the relevant provisions, this Court came to the conclusion that family pension does not form part of the estate of the deceased and therefore, even an employee has no right to dispose of the same in his will by giving a direction that someone other than the one who is entitled to it, should be given the same. In the instant case, as per the provisions of the Scheme, the appellant widow is the only family member who is entitled to the pension and therefore, the respondent mother would not get any right in the pension. Of course, it cannot be disputed that if there are other assets left by late Shri Yash Pal, the respondent mother would get 50% share, if late Shri Yash Pal had not prepared any will and it appears that late Shri Yash Pal had died intestate and no will had been executed by him.” 9. Of course, it cannot be disputed that if there are other assets left by late Shri Yash Pal, the respondent mother would get 50% share, if late Shri Yash Pal had not prepared any will and it appears that late Shri Yash Pal had died intestate and no will had been executed by him.” 9. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, Regulation 38(6)(d) of the Pension Regulations, 2018, on its plain reading, provides that where the family pension is payable to more widows than one, the family pension shall be paid to the windows in equal shares; Regulation 38(6)(d)(ii) provides that in the event of death of a widow, her share of the family pension shall become payable to her eligible child, and Regulation 38(6)(d)(iii) provides that in case the deceased employee is survived by a widow and has left behind eligible child or children from another wife who is not alive, the eligible child or children shall be entitled to the share of family pension which the mother would have received if she had been alive at the time of death of the employee or pensioner. 10. A plain reading of the provision as contained in Regulation 38(6)(d) of the Pension Regulations, 2018 makes it clear that where there are more widows than one, they would be entitled to family pension in equal shares, however, keeping in view the mandate of the Hindu Marriage Act, it is not possible that a Hindu after enactment of the Hindu Marriage Act is survived by more than one widow as the second marriage by virtue of Section 5 and Section 11 is a void marriage. It appears that Regulation 38(6)(d) of the Pension Regulations, 2018 was enacted keeping in mind that the employee can be other than Hindu also where the second marriage is not a void marriage by virtue of applicability of personal laws. 11. On the first brush, on a plain reading of Regulation 38(6)(d), the right of more than one than one widow is evident, however, it is well settled that a provision cannot be interpreted so as to violate any other statutory enactment in the present case being the Hindu Marriage Act. Literal interpretation is to be avoided where it leads to consequences which are not contemplated by a central enactment being the Hindu Marriage Act. 12. Literal interpretation is to be avoided where it leads to consequences which are not contemplated by a central enactment being the Hindu Marriage Act. 12. In the present case, without doing any mischief to Regulation 38(6)(d) of the Pension Regulations, 2018, the only rule of interpretation which can be adopted is the purposive interpretation. 13. As a Hindu, after the enactment of the Hindu Marriage Act, by virtue of the statute, cannot have two widows living at the same time, I have no hesitation in holding that Regulation 38(6)(d) of the Pension Regulations, 2018 in respect of rights of more than one widows would not be applicable in the case of Hindus unless the said person has married before the enactment of the Hindu Marriage Act. 14. Similarly interpreting Regulation 38(6)(d)(iii), the said provision entitles eligible children of a widow only in the event that she qualifies to be a ‘widow’. Once the second marriage of a Hindu is a void marriage, the person married to such a person in the present case Uma Devi shall not qualify as a widow, thus, the eligible child from the second marriage would not get the benefit of ‘family pension’ in equal proportion as is proposed to be argued by learned counsel for the respondents/Bank. 15. Coming to the provisions of Regulation 49, which provides for nomination, it is well settled that a nominee has a right to receive for benefits of all the legal heirs and there cannot be any quarrel with the provision contained in Regulation 49 of the Pension Regulations, 2018. In any event, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt Violet Issaac (supra) and Nitu (supra), no right of nomination is available in respect of family pension. 16. As regards Regulation 54, which provides that in the event of doubt, the Bank has the option to take a decision and modify the rules to align the same with the Central Civil Services Rules, 1972 or Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension), Rules, 1981 with the previous sanction of Central Government, it is admitted that no such determination of applying any of the said two Rules have been made applicable with the previous sanction of the Central Government by the Bank so far. 17. 17. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on an Office Memorandum dated 27.11.2012 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, P.G. & Pension, Department of Pension & Pensioners’ Welfare, however, as I have already held that the Bank has not yet taken any decision of applying the aforesaid two Rules on the Bank employees, the said office memorandum will be of no avail. 18. Coming to the judgments cited by learned counsel for the respondents in the case of Rameshwari Devi vs. State of Bihar and Others, AIR 2000 SC 735 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering the benefits which flow to the children of the second wife and the Court held that they would be entitled. However, while doing so, the Court had referred to the CCS Rules as well as the Bihar Government Servants Conduct Rules and had given the interpretation in view of the rules prevalent there. 19. In the present case, the rules are different and are not akin to the CCS Rules or the Bihar Government Servants Conduct Rules, which prohibit second marriage and the Court held that no departmental inquiry was initiated against the employee while he was surviving on the basis of the said rules, thus, the said judgment would have no applicability to the facts of the present case. 20. Coming to the other judgment relied upon by the respondents in the case of Amlawati Devi vs. State of Bihar and Others, MANU/BH/0047/2003 wherein the Court placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rameshwari Devi (supra) has held that the second wife would be entitled to the share of family pension. 21. As I have already held that the facts leading to the judgment in the case of Rameshwari Devi (supra) would not be applicable while interpreting the regulations as framed by the Bank, thus, the judgment in the case of Amlawati Devi (supra) would have no applicability to the facts of the present case. 22. 21. As I have already held that the facts leading to the judgment in the case of Rameshwari Devi (supra) would not be applicable while interpreting the regulations as framed by the Bank, thus, the judgment in the case of Amlawati Devi (supra) would have no applicability to the facts of the present case. 22. Coming to the third judgment cited by learned counsel for the respondents in the case of Indu Devi vs. State of Bihar and Others, Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7092 of 2016 decided on 14.11.2017 where the High Court had the occasion to deal with the circular of the Finance Department dated 06.09.1996 and had held that the second wife would also be entitled for family pension. The said judgment has no applicability to the facts of the present case as no such circular/provision in the present case exists. 23. In view of the interpretation as recorded above, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and ordered accordingly. 24. Order dated 14.10.2022 as contained in Annexure-3 is set aside with direction to the respondents/Bank to pay the family pension to the petitioner in accordance with law. 25. The arrears of family pension shall be paid to the petitioner after its computation within a period of four months.