The Calcutta High Court ruled that a divorced daughter may claim family pension if divorce proceedings began during the pensioner’s lifetime, even when the decree came later. A Division Bench dismissed the Union’s plea, upholding the CAT Kolkata decision.
WEST BENGAL: The Calcutta High Court has determined that a divorced daughter can still claim family pension even if her divorce decree is passed after the death of the pensioner provided that the divorce proceedings were initiated during the pensioner’s lifetime.
This decision was made by a Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen, who dismissed a writ petition from the Union of India, thereby supporting the verdict from the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Kolkata Bench.
The Bench concluded that because the matrimonial dispute initiated by the husband was ongoing during the father’s lifetime, and the dependency was established due to desertion, the daughter was entitled to the pension. The Court differentiated this case from a prior ruling in Union of India vs. Jayanti Chatterjee, where no proceedings or dependency existed during the pensioner’s life.
Background of the Case
The respondent, Mita Saha Karmakar, is the daughter of a retired employee from the South Eastern Railway who passed away on April 19, 2013, after retiring on December 31, 1983. Her mother had died on November 5, 2011. Mita was married on August 12, 1991.
The timeline of her matrimonial situation is as follows: In 1997, during her father’s lifetime, the respondent’s husband filed a suit for divorce which was stayed due to his failure to pay maintenance. In 2014, following both parents’ deaths, Mita filed a new divorce suit citing desertion. A divorce decree was granted on September 1, 2016.
The railway authorities denied her family pension claim in a reasoned order dated June 25, 2022, stating that the divorce suit leading to the decree was filed after her parents passed away.
The Tribunal overturned this rejection on October 9, 2024, prompting the Union of India to appeal to the High Court.
Issue Freamed: “Whether a daughter could claim family pension after her divorce was finalized following her parents’ deaths?“
Arguments of the Petitioner and Respondent
Senior Advocate Mr. D.N. Ray, representing the Union of India (Petitioners), argued that the Tribunal’s decision was flawed. He noted that the divorce decree was issued much later than the deaths of both Mita’s parents. Mr. Ray referenced the Calcutta High Court’s recent ruling in Union of India and others versus Jayanti Chatterjee (WP.CT 320 of 2024), asserting that the circumstances were identical, and Mita failed to show dependency on her father at the time of his death.
Mr. Asim Kr. Niyogi, counsel for Mita(Respondent), argued that she had been forced out of her matrimonial home and had taken refuge with her father before 1997. He emphasized that the husband’s divorce suit was pending during her father’s lifetime and that the 2016 divorce decree, based on desertion, confirmed Mita’s dependency on her father.
Analysis of the Court
The Court assessed the Department of Pension & Pensioners’ Welfare Office Memorandum (OM) dated July 19, 2017, which allows for family pension claims if divorce proceedings had begun while the pensioner was alive.
The Bench analyzed Clause 6 of the DO.P.T. OM dated July 19, 2017, which states:
“that, it has been decided to grant of family pension to the divorced Daughter in such cases where the divorce proceeding had been filed in a competent court during lifetime of the Pensioner/Employee or his/her spouse, but divorce took place after their death…”
Justice Partha Sarathi Sen, noted that the authorities had overly narrowed their interpretation of the OM. The Court pointed out that the husband’s dissolution suit had been filed during the father’s lifetime but remained on hold due to maintenance issues.
Also Read: Do Daughters Have Equal Property Right? : Hindu Succession Act, 1956
The Court also upheld the Tribunal’s finding that Mita was dependent on her father at the time of his death.
The Bench stated:
“We are also satisfied that the original applicant before the said tribunal as well as before us is also successful in establishing that at the time of death of her father (pensioner) she was very much dependent upon him on account of desertion of her husband as has been established before a competent court of law…”
The Court made a specific distinction from the Jayanti Chatterjee case.
The bench noted,
“In the considered view of us the facts and circumstances as involved in the case of Jayanti Chatterjee (Supra) are distinguishable… in the case of Jayanti Chatterjee (Supra), we have noticed that the original applicant of the said case had miserably failed to substantiate that on the day of death of her father(pensioner), she was dependent upon her father and that any divorce proceeding was initiated either by her or against her during the lifetime of her father.”
Final Order of the Court:
The High Court dismissed the Union of India’s writ petition, finding no “glaring illegality and/or perversity” in the Tribunal’s ruling.
The Court upheld that Mita’s claim fell under the provisions of the OM dated July 19, 2017, as the matrimonial proceedings were ongoing during the pensioner’s lifetime, and her dependency was established.
Case Title: The Union of India & Ors. Vs Mita Saha Karmakar
Read Attachment:
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
