In a notable ruling, the Bombay High Court on Friday held that a woman cannot be deprived of her right to family pension under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (MCSR) merely because her deceased husband had accused her of adultery.

A division bench of Justices Manish Pitale and Yanshivraj Khobragade dismissed the plea of the deceased man’s brother and mother, who had opposed the widow’s claim on this ground. The Court emphasized that under the MCSR framework, “brother” and “mother” are not recognized as family members entitled to pension.

The respondents argued that the widow should be excluded from the definition of “family” as allegations of adultery had been made against her by the deceased in a pending matrimonial dispute. The Court, however, rejected this reasoning, observing:

“A plain reading of MCSR shows that the wife could be denied family pension only if she had been judicially separated on the ground of adultery or found guilty of adultery by a competent judicial authority. In this case, there was only an allegation, without any final finding. The husband passed away before the divorce proceedings concluded.”

The bench also examined Government Resolutions dated September 29, 2018, March 31, 2023, and August 24, 2023, reiterating that family pension is payable first to the employee during his lifetime, and after death, exclusively to the spouse and children.

As per records, the deceased was appointed as an Associate Professor on July 8, 2009, and married the petitioner in 1997. Covered under the Defined Contributory Pension Scheme (DCPS) due to his post-2005 appointment, he later filed for divorce in 2011 and replaced his wife’s name with that of his brother and mother in the pension nominee list—while retaining the names of his two sons. Relying on this change, the brother and mother opposed the widow’s claim.

The Court held that they had misapplied certain Government Resolutions without harmonizing them with the MCSR provisions. Accordingly, it allowed the widow’s petition and directed the authorities to release the family pension in favor of her and her two sons.

Appearance: Advocates Yashodeep Deshmukh and Anand Kawre represented the Petitioners. Additional Government Pleader AR Kale appeared for the State Authorities. Advocates Kedar Warad and Sunil Warad appeared for the Respondents.

Case Title: VVB v. State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition No. 11613 of 2019)