ANKUR KHANNA Vs. BHARAT BHUSHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has filed this petition challenging the order dated 16.12.2010 whereby the Appellate Court modified the order passed by the trial court to the effect that family pension was liable to drawn by respondent No. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Sham Lata Khanna had executed a Will in favour of the petitioners. Hence, respondent No. 1 was not entitled to claim family pension. Moreover, respondent No. 1 had got remarried which disentitled him to claim family pension.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for respondent No. 1, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that there was no material on record to establish that respondent No. 1 had got remarried. Moreover, family pension was not covered under the term 'estate' and petitioners who were the major sons of Sham Lata Khanna were otherwise also not entitled to claim family pension. Only respondent No. 1 was entitled to claim family pension.

(3.) THE relationship between the parties is not in dispute. Further the execution of the Will in question is also not in dispute. The question that requires consideration is only to the effect as to whether respondent No. 1 is entitled to receive family pension on account of death of his wife or not. It has been also held in Smt. Sudariya Bai Choudhary Vs. Union of India and others, 2008 (4) SCT 730 that 'family pension' would not fall within the term 'estate' and the same was not transferable and could not be bequeathed by way of Will.