Minor children are entitled to family pension notwithstanding disputes over their parents’ marriage.

Sadashiva K.S.’s marriage to Shrilatha was dissolved by a decree of divorce, but that decree was later set aside following Shrilatha’s appeal.

Shrilatha predeceased Sadashiva, who died on 17 April 2025.

Gayathri claimed to be Sadashiva’s wife; their relationship and the existence of three minor daughters were not disputed, and Gayathri was named as nominee in Sadashiva’s service records.

A son from Sadashiva and Shrilatha’s marriage, aged about 19, asserted a competing claim to family pension.

The authorities directed Gayathri to obtain a succession certificate, and she challenged the resulting endorsements.

At the hearing, she filed a memo consenting to the children named in it being considered for family pension.

1. Whether the authorities could require Gayathri to obtain a succession certificate before considering the family-pension claim of the children

2. Whether the three minor daughters named in Gayathri’s memo were entitled to family pension under Rule 8(C) of the Karnataka Government Servants Family Pension Rules, 2002, notwithstanding the dispute concerning the marriage

3. Whether the competing son’s claim affected the pension order, including if he was still a minor

Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act provides legitimacy to children born from a marriage that is void or voidable, as applicable; the Court invoked it in considering the status of Gayathri and Sadashiva’s children

Rule 8(C) of the Karnataka Government Servants Family Pension Rules, 2002, provides for family pension to minor children

The Court’s direction was made without a conclusive adjudication of competing rights, leaving any aggrieved party at liberty to seek appropriate relief before a Civil Court

The Court treated the daughters’ claim as one made by children, rather than determining Gayathri’s own entitlement as a spouse or nominee.

It held that the daughters’ status for this purpose was not defeated by the dispute over the marriage, referring to Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, and applied Rule 8(C) to their claim as minor children.

Since the son from the first marriage was stated to be about 19, the Court directed pension for the three named daughters, while preserving equal distribution among all the children if the son was found to be a minor.

The order did not finally determine the parties’ rights, which remained open to adjudication in civil proceedings.

Respondent No. 3 was directed to grant family pension to the three daughters named in Gayathri’s memo and to release it within one month of receiving the order.

If the son from the first marriage was found to be a minor, the respondents were directed to distribute the pension equally among all the children.

The directions were without prejudice to any party’s right to seek relief before the Civil Court; the claim concerning compassionate appointment was left open.