ROHINI VELU Vs. COCHIN PORT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner approached this Court claiming family pension from the respondent. According to the petitioner her husband was employed in Cochin Port Trust. He died on 7. 1. 1994. THErefore, she is entitled for family pension This claim is resisted by the respondents on the ground that there was an earlier litigation claiming family pension between the petitioner's son and the second wife of the deceased and that such dispute has been settled as per Ext. P-2 judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, to grant family pension in equal shares to the said two claimants and on the son attaining the prescribed age, to the second wife in full. THE son has now attained 25 years of age and the entire family pension is being given to the second wife who is impleaded as the 3rd respondent. Now the petitioner has raised a claim that she is also entitled to a share in the family pension along with the 3rd respondent on the ground that she is a judicially separated wife THE petitioner relies on R. 54 (14 ) (b)( ia ) of Family Pension Rules, which reads as follows "a judicially separated wife or husband, such separation not being granted on the ground of adultery and the person surviving was not held guilty of committing adultery will also be included in the family to receive the family pension in respect of the deceased&quot ; It is a fact as revealed by Ext. P-1 that the marriage between the petitioner and the deceased was "declared dissolved with effect from 4. 8. 1977" by a competent court. When a marriage has been dissolved, there is no relationship of husband and wife. It also cannot therefore, be stated as a judicial separation. Judicial separation is only a permission given to the husband and wife to live separately on sufficient grounds. Here Ext. P-1 disclosed that the marriage of the petitioner with the deceased had been dissolved long ago. THErefore the petitioner is no longer a wife since the order of the Court, Ext. P-1. THErefore, the petitioner cannot now be said to be a widow to claim pensionary benefits. Whether the third respondent continues to be eligible to receive the pension is not a matter arising in this case to be decided. What is agitated here is a claim raised by the petitioner. As the marriage has been dissolved as per Ext. P-1, the petitioner cannot claim family pensiono. P. fails and is dismissed. . .