PRASANNA KUMARI G Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a widow of late Achuthan Pillai who was working as Sepoy in the Madras Regiment. Achuthan Pillai had applied for family pension in terms of the Family Pension Rules during his life time as evidenced by Ext. P1. Ext. P1 shows that the petitioner, one Maya and one Abhilash were persons eligible for family pension. Apparently, Achuthan Pillai had earlier married one Lalithamma. That ended in a divorce as evidenced by Ext. P10 registered document produced by the petitioner along with the reply affidavit. Ext. P10 would show that a copy of the registered document No. 15/74 of the Bharanikkavu Sub Registry along with its English translation was produced by the petitioner before the Records Officer, the fourth respondent. But the petitioner's claim was rejected under Ext. P8 on the premise that there is nothing to show that there was a valid divorce between the petitioner's late husband and his first wife Lalithamma. Consequently the petitioner cannot be considered as a legally wedded wife of Achuthan Pillai. This has been challenged in this writ petition.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents essentially contending that the claim made by the petitioner that there was a valid divorce between Achuthan Pillai and Lalithamma would not be substantiated by the petitioner with reference to any decree for dissolution by a competent Court. With regard to Ext. P10 registered document No. 15/74 of the Sub Registrar's Office, Bharanikavu, the stand taken by the respondents is that divorce was not obtained through Court decree. Therefore the said divorce cannot be accepted as legally valid.

(3.) I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents. The respondents have rejected the petitioner's claim for family pension on the premise that there is no document which clearly evidences a valid divorce between Achuthan Pillai and Lalithamma. Registered document No. 15/74 of the Bharanikavu Sub Registrar's office was not accepted on the premise that a valid dissolution of marriage can only be by the intervention of the Court. This stand taken by the respondents would normally be correct but one aspect was apparently not brought to the notice of the respondents. I would have normally remitted the matter for reconsideration in such circumstances. But I note of the fact that the petitioner is a senior citizen aged sixty five and she is battling for family pension for several years. Further it seems to be admitted that there is no serious rival claimant as such for the family pension. As per R.64 of the CCS (Pension) Rules a major son and daughter are not entitled to receive family pension. If there is material to show that there was a valid divorce between Achuthan Pillai and Lalithamma, then the petitioner as a lawfully wedded wife of Achuthan Pillai is entitled to receive family pension. In the circumstances, I propose to consider this aspect.