Ratno Devi vs UOI and Others

Tashi Rabstan, J.—Son of petitioner, namely, Ramesh Lal while serving in 73 Battalion of the Border Security Force died in harness and his

wife Sneh Lata-respondent No. 7 herein was granted Family Pension. Petitioner approached the functionaries of the Border Security Force to

grant her Family Pension as respondent No. 7 is stated to have re-married. Her grievance does not appear to have been addressed to by the

respondents compelling her to approach this Court seeking the following relief:--

(i) to quash order (the order has not been served on the petitioner so the petitioner has not mentioned its No. and date) by which private

respondent No. 7 Smt. Sneh Lata has been granted pension by issuance of writ of certiorari;

(ii) to issue directions to the respondents to fix and release the family pension in favour of the petitioner on behalf of her deceased, son Constable

No. 99121625 Ramesh Lal, of 73 Bn. BSF, who expired while under the active employment of the respondents and also to release other

pensionary benefits in favour of the petitioner being mother of the deceased Constable No. 99121625 Ramesh Lal of 73 Bn. BSF by issuance of

writ of mandamus;

(iii) to issue directions to the respondents to release the amount of Seema Prahari Beema Yojana in favour of the petitioner on behalf of her

deceased son No. 99121625 Constable Ramesh Lal of 73 Bn. BSF who expired while under the active employment of the respondents being the

mother of the deceased No. 99121625 Constable Ramesh Lal of 73 Bn. BSF by issuance of writ of mandamus.

(iv) to issue directions to the respondents to release the amount of pension; G.P. Fund, Insurance claim and other pensionary benefits in favour of

the petitioner along with interest @ 18% per annum and also to release the arrears retrospectively with from the date the son of the petitioner

expired i.e. 27.09.2005 by issuance of writ of mandamus.

(v) to issue directions to the respondents restraining them to release any amount to pensionary benefit in favour of private respondents No. 7 Smt.

Sneh Lata and also restraining the respondents to release pension or any other Insurance claim and amount of Seema Prahari Beema Youjana in

favour of the private respondent No. 7 by issuance of writ of prohibition.

(vi) to declare the order (the order has not been served on the petitioner so the petitioner has not mentioned No. and date) by which private

respondent No. 7 Smt. Sneh Lata has been granted pension as ultra vires, illegal, unconstitutional and against the provision of principle of natural

justice by issuance of writ of mandamus. OR

(vii) Any other writ order or directions as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Respondents have filed objections.

Respondents 1 to 6 in their reply contended that they had not been provided any valid/authentic documents proving the fact that respondent No.

7 widow of deceased employee has contracted 2nd marriage, therefore, in absence of any documentary evidence, the claim of the petitioner for

grant of family pension cannot be considered.

It is apt to reproduce paragraphs 4, 6, 7 and 8 of the reply hereunder:--

In reply to the contents of para No. 4 it is submitted that on receipt of representation of the petitioner, District Magistrate, Jammu (J&K) has

been approached to verify the alleged re-marriage of widow of late constable Sh. Ramesh Lal i.e. Smt. Sneh Lata with one Sh. Bunty Kumar s/o.

Sh. Darshan Kumar, r/o. House No. 55/2A Extn. Chann Kamala, Trikuta Nagar, Khou Wali Galli, Jammu vide Unit registered letter No.

Accttss/Verific/73 Bn/2006/11405-07 dated 17.08.2006. Copies of letter dated 22.05.2006 and letter dated 17.08.2006 are enclosed and

marked as Annexure-R3 and R4 respectively. On approaching 129 Bn. BSF, they have also made correspondence with DC, Jammu vide their

letter No. Acctts/129 Bn/Welfare-Widow/2007/1577-81 dated 06-02-2007 regarding this matter. Copy of letter dated 06.02.2007 is enclosed

and marked as Annexure-R5. But no response has been received from the concerned authority so far. Whereas, PAD (PN-III), BSF vide letter

No. PAD/13-12070/PN-III/73 BSF/06 dated 10.03.2006 has directed the Unit that as per CCS (Pension) Rules, family pension and leave

encashment is payable to widow and other financial benefits are payable to as per nomination submitted by the deceased before, his death i.e. Smt.

Ratno Devi (petitioner). Copy of letter dated 10.03.2006 is enclosed and marked as Annexure-R6. Accordingly, pension has been released in

favour of the widow of the deceased i.e. Smt. Sneh Lata vide PPO No. 240550606088 dated 27-02-2006. Copy of PPO dated 27-02-2006 is

enclosed and marked as Annexure-R7. It is pertinent to mention herein that the answering respondents have no valid/authentic document regarding

alleged re-marriage of Smt. Sneh Lata i.e. widow of the deceased Constable. It is further submitted that after verification report/reply is received

from the office of the District Magistrate, Jammu in response to the above mentioned correspondences, action in the matter can be initiated

accordingly as per rules.

In reply to the contents of para No. 6, it is submitted that the answering respondents are not having any valid/authentic document regarding

alleged re-marriage of Smt. Sneh Lata. i.e. widow of deceased, however, as per CCS (Pension) Rules, petitioner is not entitled for pension.

Accordingly, she has been apprised about this rule position vide unit registered letter No. Adm/PN/73/20062842 dated 21-2-2006. Copy of

letter dated 21-2-2006 is enclosed and marked as Annexure-R8.

That the contents of para No. 7 are denied. It is however, submitted that the Seema Prahari Beema Yojana with National Insurance Co. Ltd. is

under consideration by the insurance company. However, a sum of Rs. 31,881/- on account of CGEGIS payment has already been made to the

petitioner vide BD No, 893223 dated 13.09.2006 for Rs. 1,14,547/- including other miscellaneous amounts. Besides above, an amount of Rs.

5,00,000/- on account of ex gratia payment of Central Government has also been remitted to the petitioner vide BD No. 302910 dated

03.01.2007 in accordance to the nomination filled by the deceased before his death and also as per advise/guidance received in this regard from

PAD BSF (PN-III), New Delhi vide letter No. PAD/13-12070/PN-111/73 BSF/06 dated 10-3-2006. The acquaintance roll in respect of the

above mentioned amounts duly signed by the petitioner and attested by the Branch Manager, SBI, R.S. Pura, Jammu has been received by the

answering respondents. Copies whereof are enclosed and marked as Annexure-R9 and R10 respectively. Therefore, the petitioner's claim that she

has not received CGEGIS is incorrect, the claim of the petitioner for violation of the provision of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India

and the provisions of natural justice is mis-conceived and hence denied.

That the contents of para No. 8 are false and hence denied. It is however submitted that as per nomination filled by the deceased, a sum of Rs.

31,881/- on account of CGEGIS payment has already been made to the petitioner vide BD No. 893223 dated 13.09.2006 for Rs. 1,14,547/-

including other miscellaneous amounts. Besides above, an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of ex gratia payment of Central Government has

also been remitted to the petitioner vide BD No. 302910 dated 03.01.2007. The answering respondents are not having any valid/authentic

document regarding alleged re-marriage of Smt. Sneh Lata i.e. widow of deceased. As regards Seema Prahari Beema Yojana with National

Insurance Co. Ltd., same is under consideration by the insurance company.

4A. In the reply filed by respondent No. 7, it is contended that petitioner does not have any right to claim for family pension. Family pension under

Pension Regulations is payable only to the widow and not to mother or any other relation of the deceased during subsistence of the widow. It is

also contended that petitioner was not solely dependant on her deceased son as she has three other sons who have been maintaining her. The

allegations that answering respondent has re-married with one Bunty Kumar, and baseless.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, this Court vide order dated 17.04.2010 thought it appropriate to direct Additional District Judge

(Matrimonial Cases), Jammu to record his findings on the question as to whether respondent No. 7 had re-married after the death of her husband

and if so whether the marriage was void.

In terms of the directions of the Court, learned Additional District Judge (Matrimonial Cases), Jammu submitted his report dated 01.10.2011

after recording the statements of the witnesses and perusing the records and opined that respondent No. 7 has entered into second marriage after

the death of her first husband with one Bunty Kumar with whom she is living as his wife. Moreover, the claim that respondent No. 7 is the widow

of Bunty Kumar's real uncle has not been rebutted. Even the witnesses examined by respondent No. 7 in support of her claims have also

corroborated this fact. Even, there is no denial of this fact by the respondent herself. This, it was established that before the marriage of respondent

with one Bunty Kumar, their relation was that of aunt and nephew, as such, has direct bearing on the validity or invalidity of the marriage itself. The

marriages of Hindus are governed under Hindu Marriage Act and the difference between legal, void and voidable marriage has been specifically

provided in Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The conditions for a valid Hindu Marriage are indicated in Section 5.

The operative portion of the report reads as under:--

The instant case clearly falls within the preview of Section 5(iv) as the two are closely related to each other. For the purpose, relations are defined

in the Hindu Marriage Act under the head of Sapindas and also under the head of prohibited relationship. Here the only rider is that where the

customs and usage of both the parties allow such marriages, the marriage would not be a void marriage, but there is a need to establish the fact of

such custom and usage before the Court if an objection to the validity of the marriage is raised on this ground. There is nothing on record to

suggest that any custom of a marriage between a woman with the nephew of her deceased husband can be entered into. Even the witnesses

examined by the complainant have termed that such a marriage is unacceptable in the society. The custom of marriage solemnized within scope and

mandate of Section V, Clause IV is not prevalent in R.S. Pura. or Jammu, therefore, the marriage is within prohibit relation therefore void.

Moreso, in one of Government of India's decisions mentioned of which is made in Rule 54 of CCS (Pension) Rules, it is provided that the

widow of a policeman, who was governed by the Extraordinary Pension Rules gave birth to an illegitimate child and a question was raised whether

her family pension should be stopped. The pension was not payable only on her death or re-marriage, whichever occurred earlier. As there was no

legal re-marriage, it was held by the Ministry of Law that the case should be disposed of on the assumption that there has been no re-marriage and

as such the pension was, accordingly, allowed to continue. The spirit of the decision makes it clear that with a view to disentitle a widow from

family pension, it is to be shown that the widow has remarried and that the marriage is not void under the Hindu Marriage Act.

In the present case, the report submitted by the Additional District Judge (Matrimonial Cases), Jammu manifestly makes it clear that the

marriage though solemnized by widow is void, therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No. 7 had remarried

after the death of her husband is not well founded, as the alleged marriage is no marriage in the eyes of law, as has also been established by learned

Matrimonial Judge in his report. From all what has been observed hereinabove, this petition is found to be without any merit. Accordingly, the

same is dismissed along with connected CMA(s).