A.B. Chaudhari, J.
1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. By the present petition, the petitioner-Indian Railways have put to challenge the judgment and order dated 28.01.2014 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Nagpur, in O.A. No.2094/2006, which made an order for grant of pension to the two widows of the deceased railway employee in equal share. In support of the writ petition, Mr. Lambat, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the tribunal committed error in making the impugned order particularly when the marriage of the second wife/widow of the deceased railway employee was clearly illegal and in violation of Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act being the second marriage during the lifetime of the first wife, who was not divorced. He, therefore, submitted that in the wake of void marriage of the second wife/widow, the tribunal could not have made an order, contrary to the law. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment and order deserves to be set aside.
3. None appears for the respondent, though served.
4. We have perused the impugned order made by the tribunal. We quote paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the judgment of the tribunal, which read as under:
"7. I have gone through the Railway Services Pension Rules 1993. Rule 75 deals with family pension for railway servants, 1964. In Railway Services Pension Rules, sub rule 5 of Rule 70 says as follows:
"For the purpose of this rule, rules 71, 73 and 74 "family", in relation to railway servant means-
(i) Wife or wives including judicially separated wife or wives in the case of a male railway servant."
"8. Rule 75 deals with Family Pension Scheme for Railway Servants, 1964. Sub rule 7(i)(a) of Rule 75 stipulates that where the family pension is payable to more widows than one, the family pension shall be paid to the widows in equal shares. Therefore, from these rules, it appears that rule making authorities made provision for the second wife, being aware of the situation where the railway employee may perform a second marriage during the lifetime of the first wife. Sub Rule 7(i)(a) stipulates that where there are more widows of a deceased railway employee, family pension shall be paid to the widows in equal share.
"9. In view of the admitted position that the first wife of the child begotten from the said first wife were no more surviving and there is no other claimant for the family pension. I direct the respondent to release the family pension to the applicant within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order."
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the Central Administrative Tribunal could not have ignored the effect of Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which provides for void marriage, and, in the instant case, respondent, second wife, had married the deceased railway employee during subsistence of the first marriage. He submitted that the Courts or the Tribunals are not supposed to make orders contrary to law, i.e., Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which is the mistake on the part of the Tribunal. He, therefore, prayed for setting aside the impugned Judgment and Order made by the Central Administrative Tribunal. 6. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners carefully. We quote Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which reads thus:-*
"11. Void marriages.- Any marriage solemnized after the commencement of this Act shall be null and void and may, on a petition presented by either party thereto, against the other party, be so declared by a decree of nullity if it contravenes any of the conditions specified in clauses (i), (iv) and (v) of Section 5."
7. Undoubtedly, it is clear from reading of the above provision that the Hindu Marriage Act treats the second marriage as void during subsistence of the first marriage. The contention raised by Mr. Lambat is attractive, but does not appeal to us.
8. We cannot be oblivious of what is going on in the society and a further fact that during subsistence of the first marriage, the husband performs the second marriage by practising fraud indulging in cheating with the second woman who, thus, falls an easy prey to such person for no fault of her. Such cases are myriad. But then, since the parties are Hindus, Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act holds such marriages void. It is true that the Courts or the Tribunals should not enforce or make any order or decree contrary to law, and in this case, Section 11 of the Act. But the next question is whether such a second wife/widow, after the death of her husband, in this case, the railway employee, should be left to starve by giving all the pensionary and terminal benefits of his service to first wife only? This question will have to be answered with all seriousness and in the light of the revolution for emancipation of women. We feel that though Hindu Personal Law may not be strictly interpreted on the anvil of the Constitution of India or the fundamental rights, and should not be denigrated by the Courts, fact remains that the constitutional provisions can be pressed into service for interpretation of laws/Rules for achieving the ultimate object of the constitutional goal.
9. Article 15 of the Constitution prohibits discrimination on the ground of sex, while Article 39(a) provides for securing adequate means of livelihood for men and women equally. Article 39(e) provides for ensuring health and strength for women. Keeping in mind the "Laxman Rekha" in the matter of interpretation of provisions of Personal Laws - qua the Constitution, we find that the above constitutional provisions obligate the State for uplifting the women and secure descent living for them. What we find is that Rule 75 provides for grant of pension even to the second wife/widow of a deceased railway servant along with first wife. In our opinion, this provision of Rule 75 made by the Indian Railways cannot be held to be in conflict or interdiction with Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act. On the contrary, in our opinion, for achieving the constitutional goal, as aforesaid, even for the unfortunate second wife/widow, Rule 75 provides for grant of pension to her for her survival in life. At any rate, it must be seen that by virtue of Rule 75, the payment of pension to the two widows is required to be made in equal share, which clearly shows that there is no burden on the treasury or the Indian Railways by inserting the said noble idea. There is no reason for us to hold that Rule 75 violates Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, or that it is contrary to the Hindu Marriage Act, since it does not even remotely provides for any contradiction or interdiction therewith. We, therefore, hold that Rule 75 has been brought in the Rule book by the Indian Railways fully in consonance with the aforesaid constitutional provision.
In our opinion, Indian Railways must be complimented for making such a provision for such type of women-widows who unfortunately fall in the trap of males in performing with them what is called "illegal or void marriage" within the meaning of Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Indian Railways deserve applauds for incorporating such a rule which is seldom found in Service/Pension Rules of en number of Organizations and the Governments. In our opinion, the Central Administrative Tribunal has rightly found that the object of Rule 75 is nothing but to provide relief to such a woman who is ensnared in void marriage. We find that such an unfortunate woman is provided minimum food and shelter and that too not at the cost of Indian Railways or the taxpayers, but the pension is equally divided amongst the widows by virtue of the said Rule 75. To repeat, provision of Rule 75 is a step in furtherance of the revolution for emancipation of women.
10. Since we find that the Indian Railways have done a commendable job in framing rule like Rule 75, there is no reason why the model employers like the State and Central Government and all other instrumentalities should not adopt the same course of action, i.e., to provide for relief to a woman married with a Govt. servant, whose marriage becomes void as per Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
11. To sum up, we do not think that Rule 75, in any way, is violative of Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, and, on the contrary, we find that it is in consonance with the constitutional obligations of the State, including the Chapter providing for 'Fundamental Rights' in the Constitution.
12. In view of the above, we find no merit in the present Writ Petition. Hence we make the following order:-
ORDER
Writ Petition No.4467 of 2014 is dismissed with no order as to costs.