The Bombay High Court held that mere allegation of adultery cannot deny a wife family pension under MCSR 1982, ensuring widow and children’s pensionary rights remain protected.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
MUMBAI: In a judgment for pensionary rights under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (MCSR 1982), the Bombay High Court clarified that a wife cannot be denied family pension merely because adultery is alleged against her in pending divorce proceedings.
Case Background
The case involved a dispute between the widow and sons of a deceased State Government employee on one side, and his mother and brother on the other. The conflict arose over pensionary and terminal benefits following the employee’s death.
Key facts:
- In 2011, the deceased employee initiated divorce proceedings, alleging adultery against his wife (the petitioner).
- During the pendency of the divorce, he unilaterally changed his nomination, replacing his wife with his brother, although the names of his two sons were not removed.
- After the employee’s death, the widow claimed pensionary benefits, but the employer failed to release the same, contending that pending adultery allegations barred the wife from the definition of “family.”
- The mother and brother of the deceased argued that the family pension was alien to the Defined Contributory Pension Scheme (DCPS).
Court’s Analysis
The Bench, comprising Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Y.G. Khobragade, observed:
Allegation Alone Does Not Bar Benefits
- The definition of “family” under Rule 116(16) of MCSR 1982 allows denial of benefits only if the wife is judicially separated on the ground of adultery or found guilty of adultery by a competent court.
- In this case, the divorce proceedings were pending at the time of the husband’s death, and there was no judicial finding against the wife.
The Court noted:
“Only an allegation was made against petitioner No.1, but before the proceeding could reach finality, the employee, i.e., the husband, died and there is no finding of any Competent Judicial Authority regarding the allegation of adultery levelled against petitioner No.1.”
Nomination Under MCSR 1982 Controls
- Although the deceased had attempted to replace his wife with his brother as nominee, the nomination was made under MCSR 1982, which recognizes family pension.
- The High Court emphasized that family pension must be disbursed according to MCSR 1982, not on the personal preferences of the deceased after marital discord.
Who Qualifies as “Family”?
- As per Rule 116(16), wife and sons qualify as “family.”
- The mother and brother of the deceased do not fall within the definition for family pension purposes.
DCPS vs. MCSR 1982
While the Defined Contributory Pension Scheme (DCPS) does not provide for a family pension, the deceased had opted for benefits under MCSR 1982, which explicitly provides for a family pension to the spouse and children.
Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the release of family pension and other entitlements under MCSR 1982 in favor of the widow and sons.
This ruling is a landmark affirmation of pension rights, clarifying that:
- Pending allegations of adultery alone cannot disqualify a spouse from receiving pension benefits.
- Proper legal findings are required before denying a family pension.
- Government rules and nominations under pension schemes take precedence over personal disputes between family members.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Yashodeep Deshmukh, Anand D. Kawre
Respondents: Advocates A. R. Kale, Kedar Warad a/w Mr. Sunil Warad
Case Title:
Vaishali & Ors. V. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
WRIT PETITION NO. 11613 OF 2019
Read Judgment: