N.SAROJINI NAMBRAMCHERI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner impugns Ext.P10, whereby, her request for sanctioning family pension, consequent to the death of her husband - K.V.Venugopalan, who was an Ex-serviceman in the Artillery Wing of the Indian Army - has been turned down, saying that his first marriage to a certain Smt.K.T.Chandralekha had not been dissolved legally.

(2.) The petitioner asserts that her late husband and the aforementioned Smt.K.T.Chandralekha had agreed to divorce themselves, as evident from Ext.P2 agreement; and that it was acted upon, leading to the latter marrying again and having children of her own from such relationship. She points out that Ext.P3 affidavit has also been sworn to by Smt.K.T.Chandralekha, averring affirmatively that she had divorced late K.V.Venugopalan and that she is not interested in his pensionary benefits.

(3.) Sri.K.Mohanakannan - learned counsel for the petitioner, further explained that late K.V.Venugopalan, subsequent to his discharge from the Army, joined the Department of Posts, from which he finally retired, and that Ext.P7 is the pension payment order issued by the said department, which records his client to be the legally wedded wife of late K.V.Venugopalan. He then added that the certificate issued by the Indian Postal Department, namely, Ext.P8, would substantiate that she was fully entitled and is still drawing the family pension consequent to the death of K.V.Venugopalan. He argued that, therefore, even assuming for the sake of argument, that the marriage between late K.V.Venugopalan and the aforementioned Smt.K.T.Chandralekha had not been dissolved as per law, the entitlement of his client to pension is beyond question, since the latter has not even made any claim over that which has been authorised by the Indian Postal Department.