O.A. No. 50 of 2014. Case: V. Santhakumari Vs Union of India. Armed Forces Tribunal

Case NumberO.A. No. 50 of 2014
CounselFor Appellant: V.V. Surendran, Adv. and For Respondents: Tojan. J. Vathikulam, Central Government Counsel and Reena Abraham, Adv.
JudgesShrikant Tripathi, Member (J) and M.P. Muralidharan, AVSM & Bar, NM, Vice Admiral (Member (A))
IssueService Law
Judgement DateAugust 05, 2014
CourtArmed Forces Tribunal


Shrikant Tripathi, Member (J), (Regional Bench At Kochi)

  1. The amended O.A. filed on behalf of the applicant is taken on record after condoning the delay. M.A. No. 430 of 2014 is accordingly disposed of.

  2. Heard Mr. P.A. Harish for the applicant, Mr. Tojan. J. Vathikulam for respondents No. 1, 2, 3 and 5. None is present for the respondents No. 4, 6 and 7. Mrs. Reena Abraham had appeared on the previous date on behalf of the respondent No. 4, but today she has not appeared nor sent any adjournment slip. The respondents No. 6 and 7 are personally served by speed post, but none of them is present. So, we consider it just and expedient to proceed with the case, which will be ex parte against respondents No. 4, 6 and 7.

  3. The applicant V. Santhakumari claims ordinary family pension as the widow of late D. Sasidharan Pillai, Ex Lance Naik No. 14288312 W, who was admittedly an Army pensioner, and died on 8th October 2010, leaving behind the applicant as the sole surviving dependent. The family pension is being denied to the applicant on the ground that there was a dispute between the applicant and the 4th respondent regarding the widow-ship. The dispute was ultimately brought before the Family Court, Kozhikode, vide O.P. No. 162 of 2011. The Family Court dismissed the applicant's suit. So, she filed Matrimonial Appeal No. 15 of 2012 before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, which was decided on 6th February, 2013 vide the copy of judgment, Annexure-A7(2). The Hon'ble High Court allowed the Matrimonial Appeal and declared the applicant Santhakumari as the sole surviving widow of the deceased Sasidharan Pillai. While declaring so, the Hon'ble High Court further declared that the respondents No. 6 and 7 were also the legal-heirs of the deceased Sasidharan Pillai, born out of the wedlock of 4th respondent and late Sasidharan Pillai. The 6th respondent is the son and the 7th respondent is the daughter of late Lance Naik Sasidharan Pillai. As per the applicant, both of them have attained majority and are married, therefore, they are not dependent in any way on the estate of the deceased.

  4. We have to see as to which of the aforesaid legal-heirs of the deceased is entitled to receive ordinary family pension. To put it otherwise, whether son and daughters have any precedence over the widow or not, or all of them are entitled to share the ordinary family pension jointly. This question needs to be examined as per the Pension Regulations for the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT