Supreme Court says step-mothers who raise children like their own deserve pension rights. Urges Centre to liberalise pension rules under Air Force regulations.
New Delhi: On August 7, in an important observation made during a recent hearing, the Supreme Court of India commented that a step-mother should be considered as a “de facto mother”, especially in cases where she has raised the child and devoted her life to them.
This came during the hearing of a writ petition filed by a step-mother who was denied family pension after the death of her step-son, who was a defence officer.
The case was heard by a bench comprising Justice Surya Kant, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, and Justice N Kotiswar Singh. The petitioner, who is the step-mother of the deceased Air Force officer, challenged the decision of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) which had refused to grant her the family pension.
During the hearing, the bench showed empathy towards the petitioner and stressed the need for a more inclusive approach to the definition of “mother” in the context of pension regulations.
The Bench orally observed that the definition of mother should be expanded to include step-mothers as well.
The counsel representing the Union of India informed the Court that the Supreme Court had earlier issued a limited notice to examine whether the definition of “mother” could also include a step-mother.
Responding to this, Justice Surya Kant posed a thoughtful question, asking the respondents to consider practical and humane realities.
He remarked,
“In law you say step-mother, but she is actually de-facto mother…right from the first day, her entire life she devotes to the child.”
Justice Kant used a relatable example to highlight the situation. He said that if a biological mother passes away when a child is just a month old and the father remarries, the step-mother becomes the real caretaker and nurturer of the child. In such a case, is it fair to exclude her from receiving pension benefits?
The government side, however, stuck to the strict definition under the Pension Regulations for the Air Force, arguing that the definition of “mother” does not include step-mothers. They contended that under current rules, only biological or legally adoptive mothers are eligible.
But Justice Kant strongly questioned this rigid legal position. He referred to unfortunate incidents where biological mothers abandon their infants and later return after decades to claim benefits.
He asked,
“On one hand there is the mother who abandoned and comes after thirty-forty years claiming that she was the mother and entitled to pension, and on the other who nurtured the child, whom would you like to give pension?”
The Court seemed inclined towards adopting a more flexible and compassionate interpretation of the regulations. Justice Kant indicated that the actual bond of care and support should be recognised over technical definitions.
He suggested that even if step-mothers are not included in the current legal definition, a factual and case-by-case approach could be followed to determine eligibility for benefits.
He said,
“The definition of mother can be flexible in the Regulations and on facts one can determine who shall be entitled to pension.”
Supporting this view, the advocate representing the step-mother argued that a social welfare approach should be applied in such cases, considering the role and contribution of the step-mother in the upbringing of the child.
Also Read: Judicial Officers’ Pension || “Unified Pension Scheme May Address Concerns of All Employees”: Centre To Supreme Court
Agreeing with this approach, Justice Kant urged the Respondents to consider introducing a provision that would allow a more humane and beneficial interpretation. He added,
“For that purpose, this definition has to be liberalised.”
Taking note of the issues raised and the legal complexities involved, the Supreme Court bench adjourned the matter to be heard later.
Background Of The Case
The case arises from a dispute concerning the denial of family pension to the step-mother of a deceased Indian Air Force officer. After the officer’s passing, his step-mother approached the authorities seeking pension benefits.
However, her claim was rejected by the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) on the grounds that, under the existing Pension Regulations for the Air Force, the term “mother” does not include a “step-mother.”
Challenging this decision, the step-mother, Jayashree Y Jogi, filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court, arguing that she had raised and cared for the officer as her own son and therefore deserved to be treated as a dependent eligible for pension.
Her counsel urged the Court to take a beneficial and social view of the situation rather than follow a strict technical interpretation of the rules.
During the hearing, the Supreme Court Bench, comprising Justice Surya Kant, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, and Justice N Kotiswar Singh, took note of the petitioner’s lifelong role as a caregiver and questioned whether the law should differentiate between a biological mother and a step-mother in such cases.
The Court indicated that the definition of “mother” under pension rules should be revisited and possibly broadened to recognise real-life caregiving relationships, including that of step-mothers who assume full responsibility for the child’s upbringing.
Case Title:
Jayashree Y Jogi Versus Union of India and Others (Diary No. 53874-2023 XVII),
Click Here to Read More Reports On Pension Rights
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
