ORDER : (Subba Reddy Satti, J.) : This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “… to issue a writ order or direction more particularly a writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of the Respondents 1 to 6 in not releasing the Family Pension in favour of the petitioner pertaining to her husband Sri Kondreddy Baya Reddy, PPO, I.D.No.10030821, is contrary to the Rule 50 (6)(a)(i) of Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 as illegal and arbitrary and unconstitutional and as it is violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the Respondents 1 to 6 to release the Family Pension to the Petitioner as per law, forthwith, and pass necessary order/s…” 2. The averments in the writ affidavit, in brief, are that the petitioner is the first wife of late Sri Kondreddy Baya Reddy, employed as Revenue Officer, under the control of respondent No.2. Out of their wedlock, they were blessed with three daughters namely Anuradha, Madhavi and Shoba and their marriages were performed during the lifetime of Sri Baya Reddy. Said Baya Reddy retired from the service on 31.03.2005 on attaining the age of superannuation and died on 20.05.2021 leaving behind the petitioner as his legal heir. The petitioner approached respondent No.2 on numerous occasions for a grant of the family pension. 3. While so, respondent No.7 claiming to be the second wife of late Baya Reddy, whose name was mentioned as a nominee in the service register, has been drawing the family pension. The petitioner got issued a legal notice, on 29.06.2021, to the respondent Nos.1 to 6 to release the family pension in her favour. On 27.07.2021, petitioner and respondent No.7 agreed to receive family pension equally and the same was reduced into writing. Respondent No.7 paid half share of the family pension for four months and later she stopped paying half of the pension amount. Late Baya Reddy, during his lifetime, executed an unregistered Will dated 06.07.2005 and made arrangements for family pension. As per Rule 50(6)(a)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 (for short ‘the Rules’), ‘where family pension is payable to more widows than one, the family pension shall be paid to widows in equal shares. Petitioner is the first wife of said Baya Reddy and there is no marriage between the deceased employee and respondent No.7. As per Rule 50(6)(a)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 (for short ‘the Rules’), ‘where family pension is payable to more widows than one, the family pension shall be paid to widows in equal shares. Petitioner is the first wife of said Baya Reddy and there is no marriage between the deceased employee and respondent No.7. With these averments, the above writ petition is filed. 4. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No.2. It was contended, inter alia, that late Baya Reddy, worked as Revenue Officer in Ananthapuram Corporation. At his request, he was transferred to Kadiri Municipality. While he was working as Revenue Inspector at Kadiri Municipality, he retired from the service, on 31.03.2005 on attaining the age of superannuation. After retirement, he made representation to the Kadiri Municipality for pension and pensioner benefits. The Commissioner of Kadiri Municipality forwarded the representation for the preparation of pension proposals. Accordingly, the management addressed the deceptive rolls of Baya Reddy with a joint photo of the service pensioner in an annexure, for preparation of pension proposals to the Audit authorities, through the Commissioner, Kadiri Municipality. Accordingly, the deceptive rolls with his photo and joint photo with the family pension beneficiary were submitted, showing the name of respondent No.7 as his wife, and her name was included as a nominee, in his nomination papers. Accordingly, pension proposals were forwarded to Commissioner, Kadiri Municipality, for sanction of pension. The audit authorities sanctioned the pension making respondent No.7 as nominee of the pensioner as per the deceptive rolls and joint photo submitted by the pensioner. As per the death certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat, Kothavuru, Baya Reddy died on 20.05.2021. In the death certificate, respondent No.7’s name is shown as his wife. The petitioner neither produced proper documents nor made any application for the family pension. Respondent No.2 is not aware of the compromise entered between the petitioner and respondent No.7. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. A separate counter affidavit was filed by respondent No.4. It was contended, inter alia, that as per the death certificate issued by Gram Panchayat, Kothavuru, Baya Reddy died on 20.05.2021. The name of respondent No.7 is shown as wife of Baya Reddy. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. A separate counter affidavit was filed by respondent No.4. It was contended, inter alia, that as per the death certificate issued by Gram Panchayat, Kothavuru, Baya Reddy died on 20.05.2021. The name of respondent No.7 is shown as wife of Baya Reddy. The petitioner never approached respondent No.4 and no documents were filed by the petitioner to substantiate her contention that she is the first wife of late Baya Reddy. The agreement entered between the petitioner and respondent No.7 is not known to the authority. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Respondent No.7 filed a counter affidavit, specifically denying the claim of the petitioner about her status as the first wife of late Baya Reddy. It is contended that respondent No.7 is the legally wedded wife of late Baya Reddy and her name is mentioned as a nominee. Had the petitioner been legally wedded wife of late Baya Reddy, she would have applied to the authority claiming the family pension. Execution of unregistered Will was denied. Petitioner failed to establish that she is legally wedded wife of late Baya Reddy. Without establishing the said fact, the petitioner cannot claim family pension along with respondent No.7. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Heard Sri S. Syam Sunder Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S. Raju, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I for respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 & 5, Sri Kalava Suresh Kumar Reddy, learned standing counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri N. Aswartha Narayana, learned counsel representing Sri K. Sambasiva Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.7. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contentions as per the averments in the writ affidavit, would further contend that in fact, the petitioner is the first wife of late Baya Reddy and Baya Reddy married respondent No.7 when his marriage with the petitioner is subsisting. Hence, respondent No.7 is not the legally wedded wife of late Baya Reddy. He placed reliance on decisions reported in Gaddam Ruth Victoria v. State of A.P., represented by its Principal Secretary and others, 2023 SCC Online AP 1690 and Secretary, Lucy Sequeira Trust and another v. Kailash Ramesh Tandel and Others, (2019) 6 SCC 155 . 9. Hence, respondent No.7 is not the legally wedded wife of late Baya Reddy. He placed reliance on decisions reported in Gaddam Ruth Victoria v. State of A.P., represented by its Principal Secretary and others, 2023 SCC Online AP 1690 and Secretary, Lucy Sequeira Trust and another v. Kailash Ramesh Tandel and Others, (2019) 6 SCC 155 . 9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, learned standing counsel for respondent No.2, and learned counsel for respondent No.7 reiterated the contentions as per the averments made in the respective counter-affidavits. 10. The point for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought in the writ petition? 11. The relief in the writ petition is to declare the inaction on the part of respondent Nos.1 to 6 in releasing family pension to the petitioner on the death of Baya Reddy, who worked as a Revenue Officer in Ananthapuramu Municipal Corporation. 12. It is also not disputed fact that Sri Baya Reddy retired from service on 31.03.2005 and died on 20.05.2021. Immediately after the death of Baya Reddy, the petitioner got issued legal notice, Ex.P1 to respondent Nos.1 to 6. Though the petitioner pleaded the status of wife of late Baya Reddy, no material is placed before this Court to substantiate the said contention. Though the petitioner got issued legal notice, she did not submit any application before the authority claiming family pension. Petitioner filed Ex.P3, unregistered Will, dated 06.07.2005 said to have been executed by Baya Reddy, and Ex.P5, agreement dated 27.07.2021 said to have been entered among the petitioner, respondent No.7, and two others. The copy of Aadhaar, Ex.P6, does not indicate that the petitioner is the wife of late Baya Reddy. In voter identity card, Ex.P7, it was mentioned that the petitioner is the wife of Baya Reddy. This court is conscious that Exs.P6 and P7 are required to be proved by letting evidence. Hence, no finding is recorded as to their genuineness at this stage. 13. The plea of the petitioner is that she is the first wife, whereas respondent No.7 is the second wife of Baya Reddy. Respondent No.7 denied the same and pleaded that she is the legally wedded wife of late Baya Reddy. Thus, there exists a serious dispute regarding the status of the petitioner as the wife of Baya Reddy, be it first or second wife. Respondent No.7 denied the same and pleaded that she is the legally wedded wife of late Baya Reddy. Thus, there exists a serious dispute regarding the status of the petitioner as the wife of Baya Reddy, be it first or second wife. Unless the petitioner proves the said factum, she is not entitled to the family pension. 14. Rule 50(6)(a)(i) of the Rules prescribes that where family pension is payable to more widows than one, the family pension shall be paid to widows in equal shares. For applying the said rule, the petitioner, in the first place must demonstrate and prove her marriage and status as the wife of late Baya Reddy. 15. In the case at hand, in fact, the petitioner pleaded that out of their wedlock they were blessed with three daughters. However, no material is filed before this Court, except pleading so. In Gaddam Ruth Victoria’s case, relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no denial regarding the second marriage of the employee. Whereas in the present case, the petitioner has not placed any document to prove that she is the first wife of Baya Reddy. Therefore, the ratio in the said case will not apply to the facts of this case. 16. Family pension is not the estate of the deceased. The Rules provide for nomination. A nominee is entitled to the family pension. Of course, the nomination is for the purpose of receipt of family pension only. If there are two widows the nominee must share the pension equally to the other widow. Indeed, Rule 50(6)(a)(i) of the Rules is a beneficiary provision in favour of the woman with whom the government employee comes in contact during the subsistence of the first marriage. The provision is, therefore, required to be construed liberally to achieve its very object of the grant of family pension after the death of a government employee, to the extent reasonably possible to make available to both the wives, the family pension. 17. In Badshah v. Urmilla Badshah Godse, (2014) 1 SCC 188 , the Hon’ble Apex Court, while dealing with maintenance claimed by the second wife under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., where marriage was performed during the subsistence of the first marriage, considered the scope of ‘social context judging’. 17. In Badshah v. Urmilla Badshah Godse, (2014) 1 SCC 188 , the Hon’ble Apex Court, while dealing with maintenance claimed by the second wife under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., where marriage was performed during the subsistence of the first marriage, considered the scope of ‘social context judging’. It was held that while dealing with an application of a destitute wife or hapless children, the Court is dealing with the marginalized sections of society. The purpose is to achieve social justice, which is the constitutional vision, enshrined in the preamble of the Constitution of India. It was also observed that the Courts have to adopt different approaches in ‘social justice adjudication’, also known as ‘social context adjudication’ as mere ‘adversarial approach’ may not be appropriate. 18. The Hon’ble Apex Court further held that the provision of maintenance would fall in this category which aims at empowering the destitute and achieving social justice or equality and dignity of the individual. While dealing with cases under this provision, a drift in the approach from “adversarial” litigation to social context adjudication is the need of the hour. 19. In the case at hand, there is a serious dispute regarding the marital status of the petitioner with late Baya Reddy. Except filing Exs.P3 and P5, unregistered Will and the alleged agreement entered between the petitioner and respondent No.7, nothing is placed before this Court to establish that the petitioner is the first wife of late Baya Reddy. 20. Going by the recital in Ex.P5, without admitting the genuineness of the same, if one of the parties fails to adhere to the terms and conditions of Ex.P5, the aggrieved party has to approach the competent forum (Civil Court) seeking redressal, but not filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, will not adjudicate into disputed questions of facts. The other judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, is also not applicable to the facts of this case. 21. Given the discussion supra this Court does not find any merits in this writ petition and is liable to be dismissed. 22. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Any observation made by this Court in this order is only to render the decision. 21. Given the discussion supra this Court does not find any merits in this writ petition and is liable to be dismissed. 22. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Any observation made by this Court in this order is only to render the decision. The observations will not come in the way of the petitioner in proving Exs.P3 and P5 and claiming benefits before the competent court. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.