The need for validation from the Family Court on marital status is essential when disputes arise over pension claims involving multiple spouses.

COMMON JUDGMENT

K.NATARAJAN, J.

Writ petition W.P(C) No. 44757 of 2025 is filed by the petitioners challenging the order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kochi (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), for setting aside the order passed in O.A. No. 458 of 2018 dated 17.11.2022.

2. The second writ petition, W.P (C) No. 40337 of 2025, is filed by the Union of India, challenging the very same order of the Tribunal.

3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P (C) No. 44757 of 2025, the learned Central Government Counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 5 and learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. In WP(C) No.40337 of 2025, heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for the Union of India and the learned counsel appearing for the second and third respondents.

4. In WP(C) No. 44757 of 2025, the first respondent, Mariyam, filed O.A. No. 458 of 2018 before the Tribunal, seeking sanction of family pension consequent to the death of her husband, Aboobaker Koya. Notice was issued to all the respondents in the O.A, including respondent Nos. 5 and 6, who are the present petitioners. Though they appeared through counsel, they neither filed any counter affidavit nor adduced any evidence. The other respondents filed their counter affidavits.

5. Based on the materials produced by the applicant-Mariyam, the Tribunal passed an order dated 17.11.2022, directing respondent Nos. 3 & 4 to accept the documents produced by her and to sanction family pension along with arrears and interest.

6. After the passing of the Tribunal’s order, the present petitioners, though they had not contested the matter before the Tribunal, produced documents before the Pension Sanctioning Board, claiming that they were the legal heirs of the deceased Aboobaker Koya, namely, his wife and daughter, as reflected in the service records, and sought sanction of pension. The Pension Sanctioning Board accepted their claim and sanctioned pension in their favour, without implementing the directions issued by the Tribunal.

7. Subsequently, the first respondent filed a miscellaneous application before the Tribunal seeking implementation of its order. Thereafter, the authorities stopped the pension paid to the petitioners. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed W.P(C) No. 44757 of 2025, challenging the order of the Tribunal.

8. Similarly, the Union of India also filed W.P(C) No. 40337 of 2025, contending that, as per the service records, respondents 2 & 3 were shown as wife and daughter of the deceased Aboobaker Koya, who retired from service on 28.09.1981 and died on 06.11.2016. It was submitted that Aboobaker Koya divorced the second respondent-Sulaikha on 05.01.1998 and subsequently married the first respondent Mariyam on 04.08.1998, and that the Tribunal accepted these documents and directed sanction of pension.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No.44757 of 2025 contended that the order of the Tribunal is unsustainable, as the first respondent committed fraud on the Tribunal by producing invalid documents. It was argued that the divorce certificate relied upon was issued only in the year 2018, allegedly based on committee recommendations, which were never produced before the Tribuna