A daughter who has undergone a customary divorce is considered a dependent and is entitled to a family pension, as customary divorce is an accepted mode of dissolution of marriage.

JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)

1. The father of the respondent was an employee of the railways, who retired on 05.10.1971 on attaining the age of superannuation.

2. Unfortunately, the respondent’s marriage which had been contracted during her father’s lifetime ended in a failure resulting in a customary divorce being entered into between her and her husband. This divorce occurred on 12.10.1978. In other words, during the lifetime of her father, the respondent’s marriage stood dissolved by virtue of the customary divorce.

3. On 07.07.1985, the father of the respondent passed away and as provided under the rules, his wife i.e the mother of the respondent, started receiving the family pension.

4. On 01.01.2015, the mother of the respondent, i.e.., the wife of the pensioner also passed away.

5. The respondent, being the divorced daughter of the pensioner, made a claim for payment of family pension on 19.02.2015.

6. The Railways, by way of a communication dated 02.05.2015, called upon the respondent to furnish a decree of divorce in order to consider her claim for family pension.

7. Since the Railways sought for a decree of divorce, the respondent-initiated proceedings for divorce and ultimately the Family Court on 01.05.2017, granted her a decree of divorce. It is not in dispute that that in these proceedings, the respondent did categorically aver that her marriage had, in fact, ended by way of customary divorce on 12.10.1978.

8. On furnishing the decree of the divorce, the Railways, however, proceeded to take the view that the divorce had occurred only in the year 2017, i.e. after the pensioner had passed away in 1978 and hence her claim could not be entertained and it proceeded to reject the same.

9. The respondent being aggrieved by this rejection, approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the CAT, by the impugned order, has allowed the application and has directed the payment of family pension.

10. The Railways, thereafter, also proceeded to file a Review on the ground that the form that her father, i.e., the pensioner had filled up in relation to the payment of gratuity did not indicate the name of the respondent and, therefore, she was not entitled to family pension. The Tribunal has not acceded to this plea and has rejected the review.

11. As a consequence, the Railways are before this Court, assailing the order of the CAT allowing the application and also rejecting their review.

12. At the outset, it is to be stated here that a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rekhaben D/O Gopal Bhai N. Parmar decided on 21.12.2021 in Special Civil Application No.1871 of 2021 has declared in a case relating to a Railway employee itself that the law that an employee of the daughter of the Railway employee, who has obtained the customary divorce, is a dependent as provided under the rules and would, therefore, be entitled for grant of family pension. This judgement of the Division Bench has been accepted by the Railways, inasmuch as, no SLP has been preferred to the Supreme Court.

13. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that two Division Benches of this Court in SCA No.17517 of 2019 and SCA No.1871 of 2021 have taken a similar view that a customary divorce is an accepted mode of dissolution of marriage and, therefore, the employee of the Railways, whose daughter has obtained a customary divorce would be entitled for family pension.

14. In light of this legal position taken by the Division Benches of this Court on more t