IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 101475 OF 2025 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

SMT. VIDYASHREE W/O. IRAYYA PUJAR, AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. KARADIGUDDI, TQ AND DIST. BELAGAVI – 591 103.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI – 110 011.

2. THE LIEUTENANT COLONEL, SENIOR RECORD OFFICER FOR OIC RECORDS, MARATHALI, BELAGAVI – 590 001.

Digitally signed by RAKESH S 3. GEETA ADAVAYYA PUJAR, HARIHAR AGE. MAJOR, OCC.NIL, Location: Hi gh Court of R/O. SANNA ONI, KARADIGUDDI, Karnataka, BELAGAVI-01.

Dharwad Bench, Dharwad …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VENKATESH M. KHARVI, DSGI FOR R1)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.2812778Y/SR/DWS/FP DATED 19/12/2024 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-C2. ISSUE WRIT IN THE MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO DISPERSE THE FAMILY, PENSION AND OTHER TERMINAL BENEFITS PERTAINING TO DECEASED IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an endorsement dated 19.12.2024, by which the family pension of the petitioner is denied and the petitioner seeks a consequential mandamus for release of family pension and other terminal benefits of the deceased husband.

2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Jagadish Patil for the petitioner learned DSGI Sri.Venkatesh M.Kharvi appearing for respondent No.1.

3. The facts in brief germane are as follows:

The petitioner is said to have married one Irayya Pujar, who was working as a jawan in the 2^nd respondent coming under the 1^st respondent. The husband of the petitioner commits suicide on 28.11.2023, by the act of pouring kerosene on himself and setting himself ablaze. The axe of the crime falls on the wife for abatement to suicide, by a complaint registered by the mother, which becomes a crime in Crime No.137 of 2023. The police conduct investigation and filed a charge sheet before the concerned Court, arraying the petitioner as accused and accusing the petitioner for an offence of abatement to suicide. After the filing of the charge sheet, the petitioner filed an application seeking her discharge from the array of accused. The concerned Court allows discharge application, sets the petitioner free from allegations. The said order of discharging the petitioner is called in question again by the mother in Criminal Revision Petition. The Criminal Revision petition also is said to be dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

4. Now the mother is said to have approached the Apex Court in a Special Leave Petition. Therefore the petitioner, who is entitled to family pension or other terminal benefits on the death of the husband, is not paid a penny, on the score that the mother has been agitating by filing complaint against the present petitioner for the offence of abatement to suicide.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the concerned Court of Session has discharged the petitioner holding that there was no element of abatement to suicide present in the case at hand, which is affirmed by the Co- ordinate Bench in Criminal Revision Petition No.100433 of 2024 following the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Prakash and Others Vs.The State of Maharashtra and Another, 2024 INSC 1020 and Kanchan Sharma Vs.State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 737 would submit that there is no warrant for the respondent No.1 to rely on the complaint of the mother or the representation of the mother to deny family pension or terminal benefits to the petitioner.

6. The learned DSGI Sri.Venkatesh M. Kharvi would subm