Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 24725
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
AMIT RAWAL, K. V. Jayakumar, JJ
BEENA MUNDATHANATHU – Appellant
Versus
THE UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
WA NO. 265 OF 2016 | WPC NO.36941 OF 2015
For the Appellants/Petitioners: ADV SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW
For the Respondents: ADV SMT.SREEKALA K.L., CGC
Family pension claims involving jurisdictional issues require examination of prior judicial directives and evidence of compliance.
Headnote:The appellant claimed family pension for her minor child following the death of her husband while serving as a Constable. The Single Bench dismissed her claim citing the lack of jurisdiction and failure to act upon a prior judgment. The court found no illegality in this decision. The main issue concerned the jurisdiction and prior developments since a previous ruling. Therefore, the court affirmed the dismissal without identifying any error.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenged denial of family pension due to jurisdiction and lack of action. (Para 1) |
| 2. the court confirmed the rejection due to legal consistency and jurisdiction. (Para 2) |
JUDGMENT Amit Rawal, J.
The present writ appeal is directed against the judgment of the Single Bench whereby the claim of the appellant-petitioner for family pension of minor child has been rejected, on two grounds; one is lack of jurisdiction of the Kerala High Court and the other, no action had been taken pursuant to the previous judgment dated
2.6.2010, Ext.P1.
2. The grievance of the petitioner had been that the husband while working as a Constable died in harness. She was denied the family pension on account of the remarriage but claimed the pension on account of her son. On the basis of the statement accorded by the Delhi Police, this Court had disposed of the writ petition No.8441 of 2010 directing for reconsideration of the matter, if required documents are produced. It is not borne out from the pleadings what happened thereafter and probably when the time of contempt was over, another writ petition was filed in 2015 without giving the explanation of the development after Ext.P1 judgment. The death of the employee had occurred in 1997 whereas the claim was agitated in 2010. Even otherwise, the respondents are in Delhi whereas the petitioner is residing abroad.
