JUDGMENT : The petitioner impugns Ext.P10, whereby, her request for sanctioning family pension, consequent to the death of her husband – K.V.Venugopalan, who was an Ex-serviceman in the Artillery Wing of the Indian Army – has been turned down, saying that his first marriage to a certain Smt.K.T.Chandralekha had not been dissolved legally. 2. The petitioner asserts that her late husband and the aforementioned Smt.K.T.Chandralekha had agreed to divorce themselves, as evident from Ext.P2 agreement; and that it was acted upon, leading to the latter marrying again and having children of her own from such relationship. She points out that Ext.P3 affidavit has also been sworn to by Smt.K.T.Chandralekha, averring affirmatively that she had divorced late K.V.Venugopalan and that she is not interested in his pensionary benefits. 3. Sri.K.Mohanakannan – learned counsel for the petitioner, further explained that late K.V.Venugopalan, subsequent to his discharge from the Army, joined the Department of Posts, from which he finally retired, and that Ext.P7 is the pension payment order issued by the said department, which records his client to be the legally wedded wife of late K.V.Venugopalan. He then added that the certificate issued by the Indian Postal Department, namely, Ext.P8, would substantiate that she was fully entitled and is still drawing the family pension consequent to the death of K.V.Venugopalan. He argued that, therefore, even assuming for the sake of argument, that the marriage between late K.V.Venugopalan and the aforementioned Smt.K.T.Chandralekha had not been dissolved as per law, the entitlement of his client to pension is beyond question, since the latter has not even made any claim over that which has been authorised by the Indian Postal Department. 4. Sri.Joseph Rony Jose – learned Central Government Counsel, submitted that his client has been incapacitated from acceding to the request of the petitioner because she has not been able to substantiate that her former husband had legally divorced from his first wife, Smt.K.T.Chandralekha. He then read out Ext.P3 affidavit, stated to have been issued by Smt.K.T.Chandralekha, to show me that she herself has averred that the aforesaid divorce is not valid, but that she was under the impression that a registered document akin to Ext.P2 was sufficient. He contented that, therefore, the challenge to Ext.P10 is now untenable. 5. I have evaluated the afore rival submissions and hence also gone through the materials on record. 6. He contented that, therefore, the challenge to Ext.P10 is now untenable. 5. I have evaluated the afore rival submissions and hence also gone through the materials on record. 6. I must say that I find force in the submissions of Sri.Joseph Rony Jose – learned Central Government Counsel, which is also reflected in Ext.P10, that the divorce of late K.V.Venugopalan from Smt.K.T.Chandralekha was not as per law. However, it is also equally true that Smt.K.T.Chandralekha never asserted any right over the pension of late K.V.Venugopalan, which is evident from Exts.P7 and P8; and she is also stated to have sworn to an affidavit, namely Ext.P3, to the effect that she does not want the pension eligible for late K.V.Venugopalan's family from the Indian Army. 7. Therefore, even if it is taken that the divorce as reflected in Ext.P2 is not legally valid, it would cause no prejudice to the Indian Army, as long as Smt.K.T.Chandralekha does not stake a claim to the family pension. This is more so because, the marriage of late K.V.Venugopalan and the petitioner appears to have been accepted by the Indian Postal Department, which is evident from Exts.P7 and P8, and hence it would only be in furtherance of such that the Indian Army also considers their marriage to be valid. Of course, any claim from Smt.K.T.Chandralekha will have to be accounted for. In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition and set aside Ext.P10; with a consequential direction to the competent Authority of the Indian Army to reconsider the petitioner's claim, after affording her and Smt.K.T.Chandralekha, an opportunity of being heard; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible. I make it clear that, should Smt.K.T.Chandralekha refuses to answer summons or notices issued to her, or if she is to affirm, as done in Ext.P3, that she is not interested in the pension, then the competent Authority will ensure that all necessary steps for disbursement of the same in favour of the petitioner is taken forward as per law and completed without any avoidable delay.