A legally wedded spouse is entitled to family pension unless proven guilty of murder or adultery, as unproven allegations do not affect pension rights.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev Kumar, J.

1. The petitioners invoke extraordinary writ jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to throw challenge to an order and judgment dated 14th February, 2023 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Srinagar at Jammu [“AFT”] in TA No.400/2017 titled Anjali Sharma v. Union of India and others, whereby the AFT has allowed the petition of respondent No.3 and directed respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to grant ordinary family pension to respondent No.3 on account of death of her husband Sep Sunny Ram as per rules.

2. The petitioners are parents of Late Sepoy Sunny Ram and had lodged a claim before the Army authorities for payment of family pension and other benefits on account of death of their son Late Sunny Ram to the exclusion of respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 was sought to be excluded from the benefit of family pension primarily on the ground that their son Sepoy Sunny Ram was killed by her and that the marriage between late Sunny Ram and respondent No.3 was nullity in the eye of law. The petition/application filed by respondent No.3 before the AFT was contested by the petitioners on the aforesaid grounds. The AFT having regard to the rival stand of the parties and the rule position obtaining on the subject came to the conclusion that respondent No.3 being a legally wedded wife of Sepoy Sunny Ram was entitled to family pension under Rule 75(a) of Pension Regulations for the Army, Vol.I (2008) read with para 212 of the said Pension Regulations. The AFT also took note of the fact that though, there was a criminal case registered with regard to mysterious death of Sepoy Sunny Ram but the same was ultimately closed as a case of motor vehicular accident. The closure report submitted by the police was accepted by the competent Court of law and the protest petition lodged by the petitioners was rejected. The AFT vide order and judgment impugned held respondent No.3 entitled to Ordinary Family Pension and other benefits on account of death of Sepoy Late Sunny Ram and, accordingly, issued direction to respondent No.1 and 2 to issue necessary orders in this regard within a period of four months. It is this order and judgment of the AFT, which is assailed by the petitioners through the medium of instant petition.

3. Before us also it was argued by Mr. J.P.Gandhi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that respondent No.3, who claims to be the wife of Sepoy Sunny Ram is not the legally wedded wife of Sepoy Sunny Ram, in that, respondent No.3 is living in adultery and, therefore, the marriage, if any, between Sunny Ram and respondent No.3 is nullity in the eye of law.Mr. Gandhi would argue that in the face of a very serious allegation of murder of Sepoy Sunny Ram against respondent No.3, the AFT ought not to have held respondent No.3 entitled to family pension. He would submit that the Investigating Agency did not conduct the investigation fairly and erroneously termed it a case of accident, more so when the person, who allegedly committed the accident also could not be traced out and the investigation was closed as ‘accused untraced’.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment passed by the AFT is legally perfect and does not call for any interference by us in the exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. Indisputably, respondent No.3 was wife of Sepoy Sunny Ram and this is so entered in the army records. It is true that the death of Sepoy Sunny Ram happened under mysterious circumstances. The FIR came to be registered for commission of offence under Section 279, 304-A RPC. The investigation ended in reaching at the conclusion that Sepoy Sunny Ram had died in a motor vehicular accident and was not killed or murdered by respondent No.3. Accordingly, closure report was submitted before the competent Court