WP(C) 3523/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Ms. R. Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. P. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6. I have also heard Ms. R. Chokraborty, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate as well as Mr. C. Baruah, lear ned counsel appearing for the Accountant General. By means to this writ petition, the petitioner Smt. Mubi Sinha, has pra yed for a direction to the respondents to pay her family pension in respect of t he service rendered by her deceased husband, namely Sura Sinha, who was serving in the Police Department as UB Constable. Late Sura Sinha retired from service o n 30.06.2001 on attaining the age of superannuation. He was duly paid his pensio nary and other retirement benefits. He died on 05.01.2005. According to the petitioner, she being the legally married wife of Late Sura Sinha, is entitled to receive family pension. According to the statement m ade in the writ petition, she was married to her husband in the year 1963 and o ut of the said wedlock a daughter was born to them. To establish that the petiti oner is the legally married wife of Late Sura Sinha, the petitioner has placed r eliance on the orders passed in the proceeding pertaining to the claim of mainte nance. No other documents have been furnished. On the other hand, the respondent No. 6 claiming herself to be the only wife of late Sura Sinha, has contended in her affidavit that she was married to her deceased husband in the year 1971 and out of the said wedlock two children w ere born. The respondent No. 6 has also stated about her nomination in pension p apers by her deceased husband and as to how she had been receiving family pensio n after expiry of her husband till the interim order was passed by this Court on 03.08.2007. She further contended that as per the available records, it is she (respondent No. 6) who is legally married wife of late Sura Sinha. However, in paragraph-4 of the affidavit filed by the respondent No. 5, i.e. the Superintend ent of Police Hailakandi, it has also been stated that upon enquiry it was reve aled that late Sura Sinha had also married the petitioner and out of the said w edlock a daughter was born. However, no materials have been disclosed relating t o said enquiry. In the counter affidavit filed by the Accountant General, it has been st ated that after finalisation of the pension papers of the deceased, the file was returned to the department and that the family pension was sanctioned on the ba sis of the documents available. While the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being legally married wife of late Sura Sinha she is entitled to get family pen sion, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 submits that there being no docum ents to show that the petitioner is legally married wife, she not is entitled to get family pension. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the resp ondent No. 6 that the proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot establish the marital tie and that the said proceeding being confined only to right of mainten ance, same cannot be said to be a proof of marriage between the petitioner and l ate Sura Sinha. Above being the disputed question of fact involved in the writ petition, this Court cannot take any conclusive decision so as to hold that the petitione r is entitled to receive family pension. It will be open for her to pursue such other legal remedy as may be available in law including the departmental appeal. In case of making any representation to the departmental remedy, her grievance may be looked into on the basis of the available records. In addition, the peti tioner will be entitled to produce the related documents to establish her claim as has been raised in the writ petition. Since the respondent No. 6 has been in receipt of family pension after e xpiry of late Sura Sinha on 05.01.2005, I am of the considered opinion that she may continue to receive the same till such time the matter is established otherw ise. Consequently, the interim order dated 03.08.2007 stands vacated. In the event of making any claim by the petitioner to the departmental a uthority with valid documents, such authority shall decide the issue as expediti ously as possible. In view of this order, the respondent No. 6 shall be paid her family pen sion both arrear and current immediately.