Some months earlier than D. Ramu, an Military Naik, was to be discharged from service on medical grounds in 2002, he was required to submit a joint {photograph} along with his spouse Anuradha, whom he had married in 1991. Anuradha was his authorised “next of kin” as per information of the Corps of Military Air Defence (AAD). Publish-discharge, he acquired pension until his loss of life in April 2010.
Thereafter, the Assistant Director, Zilla Sainik Welfare Workplace, Mahabubnagar in Telangana, acquired an utility from one D. Padma stating she was Ramu’s widow and sought grant of household pension. The officer in cost (Information), AAD Information, nonetheless, knowledgeable Ms. Padma her title didn’t tally with particulars of partner talked about in Ramu’s service paperwork.
It emerged that Ramu had married Ms. Padma in June 2003, years after Anuradha allegedly abandoned him. He had not divorced Anuradha. Ms. Padma had begotten three youngsters from Ramu. The Andhra Pradesh authorities’s household ration card issued in 2007 to Ramu talked about Ms. Padma as his spouse and had the names of her first two youngsters. Their third little one was born later.
Thereafter in September 2010, the Military authorities acquired one other petition looking for disbursal of Ramu’s loss of life advantages to Anuradha and Ms. Padma with 25% share for the primary spouse and remaining for the second spouse.
The Military authorities had been perplexed when Ms. Padma not solely contested this declare of Ramu having been beforehand married to Anuradha but additionally mentioned the applying for pension acquired in Anuradha’s title was truly despatched by Ramu’s sister Suseela.
Information that emerged throughout an investigation by the Zilla Sainik Welfare Workplace and police startled the authorities. The lady, who had utilized for pension in Anuradha’s title, admitted that she was certainly Ramu’s sister. It so occurred that Ramu, on the time of his discharge, was unable to legally substitute Ms. Padma as his partner since he had not divorced Anuradha. Due to this fact, on the advise of somebody, he had requested Suseela to pose for a joint {photograph} with him and submitted it to the AAD passing it of as his spouse Anuradha. He didn’t foresee the issues after his lifetime.
After Suseela’s lie stood uncovered, Ms. Padma sought to be declared as Ramu’s “next of kin” and be granted the pension.
Prolonged battle
A prolonged and unsuccessful battle ensued at totally different boards, together with the Andhra Pradesh Excessive Courtroom. Ultimately, Ms. Padma approached the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chennai Circuit Bench at Hyderabad, difficult the rejection of household pension.
After listening to counsel, the Tribunal’s members, Justice Ok. Harilal and Lt. Normal Bobby Cherian Mathews, final month delivered the orders within the case.
Whereas holding that since Ramu had married Ms. Padma in the course of the lifetime of his first spouse, the wedding was void, they took be aware of different features to recognise her declare for pension. The tribunal mentioned Ramu had tried to substitute the title of his second spouse within the information however was unable to take action resulting from authorized causes. Moreover, the whereabouts Anuradha weren’t identified to him.
The tribunal then addressed the query whether or not Ms. Padma’s “sustained cohabitation” with Ramu would give rise to any presumption of authorized standing of spouse and if she could possibly be thought of because the late soldier’s widow.
Citing a number of verdicts by the Supreme Courtroom, the tribunal held that the continual cohabitation of Ms. Padma and Ramu could possibly be presumed to be a “lawful marriage” as they had been dwelling as husband and spouse. “In the light of this, denial of the status of widow in favour of the applicant for grant of family pension cannot be justified even though it was originally a void marriage. Denial of family pension in favour of applicant after the emergence of valid marriage through presumption would therefore amount to denial of justice,” Justice Harilal and Lt. Gen. Bobby concluded.
Nevertheless, protecting in consonance with the ideas laid down by the Supreme Courtroom within the case of Union of India and Others Vs Tarsem Singh, the tribunal mentioned the pension arrears will likely be restricted to 3 years previous to the date of submitting of the unique utility (April 3, 2023). The arrears shall be paid inside 4 months of the receipt of the tribunal’s order.