ET OnlineDivorced daughter deserted by her husband can get her late father’s family pension if her dependency on the father existed during his lifetime, says high court (AI generated representative image)
If he’s gone, can she manage everything?
Free Independent Women Workshop
In December of last year, the Calcutta High Court ruled that a daughter who has been deserted can claim family pension if her dependency and marital breakdown existed during the lifetime of the pensioner (her late father) even if the actual divorce was granted much later by the court.
Income Tax Guide
Income Tax Union Budget FY 2026-27 LiveIncome Tax Slabs FY 2025-26Income Tax Calculator 2025
The details leading to this judgement is that her late father worked for the South Eastern Railway and retired from service on December 31, 1983. Her mother died on November 5, 2011, following which the father passed away on April 19, 2013.
Though she had married on August 12, 1991, her husband initiated divorce proceedings in 1997. However, the court issued a stay on this case due to her husband’s failure to pay maintenance. In 2014, she filed for divorce again, citing desertion as the reason. This time, divorce was granted by the court on September 1, 2016, officially ending their marriage.
While dealing with the divorce case, she also had to fight for her late father’s family pension. On May 26, 2022, the records show that the Authority, while considering her request for family pension, concluded that since her suit for divorce was filed long after her parent’s death,she could not be considered dependent on them , leading to her pension request being denied.
However, the tribunal did not agree with the Authority and they came to a finding that as per a government memo (DO.PT OM dated July 19, 2017), it is not necessary for a divorce case to be pending during the parents’ lifetime for the applicant to be eligible for a pension. The tribunal also noticed that the Authority had interpreted the government memo in a restrictive manner, which was not justified.
The Authority filed an appeal in Calcutta High Court after feeling aggrieved with the tribunal’s order. The Calcutta High Court ruled in the daughter’s favour. The Calcutta High Court judgement was recently cited in a Tripura High Court judgement also, however, in the Tripura case, the daughter lost the family pension case.
Calcutta High Court order
This judgement was passed by the high court on December 9, 2025.
Main issue for consideration
The high court said that the moot questions that arise for their consideration in the instant writ petition are, whether the original applicant (daughter) was at all dependent upon her father at the time of his death, and if she is at all eligible to receive family pension from the employer of his deceased father.
She was deserted by her husband in 1996
The high court said that they have noticed that she has furnished sufficient documents before the tribunal proving that she was deserted by her husband on or before 1996, and since then, was compelled to reside at her paternal home with her father, and that she has no independent income of her own.
In the course of argument, her Advocate, Mr Asim Kumar Niyogi, had shown from the annexures to the writ petition that her husband had filed a suit for dissolution of marriage against her in 1996 when her father was very much alive. The suit was, however, stayed on account of non-payment of maintenance by her husband.
She filed for divorce for the second time in 2014
The high court said that evidence and materials have been placed before them which shows that in 2014, she filed another suit for dissolution of marriage against her husband on the ground of desertion.
The high court also observed that the jurisdictional trial court while passing the decree in the matrimonial suit, observed on the basis of the admission of the husband that the she was deserted by him since December 15, 1995 that is during the lifetime of the pensioner (her father).
Government memo and facts of this case
The government memo dated July 19, 2017 says:
“…it has been decided to grant family pension to the divorced daughter in such cases where the divorce proceeding had been filed in a competent court during lifetime of the Pensioner/Employee or his/her spouse, but divorce took place after their death -provided the claimant fulfils all other conditions for grant of family pension under rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. In such cases, family pension will commence from the date of divorce.”
The high court said that if the said memo is looked in the perspective of the factual aspects as narrated, it appears that the Authority has failed to visualise that her husband had filed a suit for dissolution of marriage against her during the lifetime of her father which remained stayed on account of non-payment of maintenance by the husband.
Subsequently, the marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce on September 1, 2016, in a suit for dissolution of marriage initiated by the original applicant/wife.
The high court said that based on her lawyer’s arguments and facts of this case, she was successful in establishing that her claim for family pension came under the purview of the said memo dated July 19, 2017.
The high court said that it appears that the Authority by passing the reasoned order interpreted the memo in a narrow manner overlooking its beneficial object.
She was very much dependent on her father and thus needs family pension
The high court said that they are also satisfied that she is successful in establishing that at the time of death of her father (pensioner), she was very much dependent upon him on account of desertion of her husband as was established before a competent court of law, which passed the decree of divorce in her favour, noticing candid admission of her husband.
Judgement:
- In view of the discussion made herein above, the high court finds no fault on the part of the said tribunal in passing the order impugned. It appears that the tribunal interpreted the DO. PT. OM dated 19.07.2016 in its true perspective and the view taken by the said Tribunal is quite a plausible view.
- The high court said that they are conscious that sitting in writ jurisdiction stage they are not supposed to act like an appellate court and thus cannot substitute their view simply because another view is possible. In absence of any glaring illegality and/or perversity in the order impugned, they are not at all inclined to interfere with the order impugned
- As a result, the instant writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed, however considering the facts and circumstances of the case without any order as to cost.
aniltikotekar4sme.com 