Divorced Daughters Also Entitled to Freedom Fighters’ Pension Same As Unmarried Daughters: Madras HC

The Madras High Court has held that divorced daughters of freedom fighters cannot be denied pensionary benefits merely because they were once married. Court allowed a writ petition by a divorced daughter of freedom fighters and quashed the Central Government’s rejection of her claim for Samman pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme.

The bench of Justice V. Lakshminarayanan considered the petitioner’s application for transfer of her deceased mother’s Central Samman pension and set aside the impugned order by which the Ministry of Home Affairs had refused the claim. The petitioner, Thillai Lokanathan, had applied for pension on January 27, 2023.

The petitioner’s father, Shanmuga Thevar, was a freedom fighter who served in the Indian National Army in Burma under Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose and was imprisoned in Rangoon Jail for six months. The petitioner’s mother, Tmt. Lakshmi, received both State and Central freedom fighters’ pensions until her death at the age of 83. The petitioner had married a Singapore citizen, later obtained a divorce, returned to India and lived with her mother before the mother’s death.

For the Ministry of Home Affairs, Freedom Fighters and Rehabilitation Division, Deputy Solicitor General of India R.Rajesh Vivekananthan relied on the 2014 Revised Policy Guidelines for disbursement of Central Samman pension and contended that the scheme requires a daughter to be unmarried and without independent income to qualify as a dependent. He stated that the Supreme Court and other High Courts have held that a divorced daughter is not entitled to maintenance. He relied on judgments including State of Himachal Pradesh and Another vs Jafli Devi (1997), Pushpaben Maganlal B. Harijan vs Union of India (2005), Tulsi Devi vs Union of India and Another (2019) and Union of India vs Laxmibai and Another (2011).

On the other hand, Advocates A.P.Surya Prakasam and N. Abiragan for the petitioner challenged the application of the guidelines and relied on earlier decisions in which divorced daughters were held to be eligible for the freedom fighters’ pension.

Court examined judgments, including the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision in Khajani Devi v. Union of India and the subsequent order by the Supreme Court dismissing an SLP in relation to that decision. The Punjab and Haryana High Court had held that excluding a divorced daughter while including an unmarried daughter under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme would be irrational and contrary to the scheme’s purpose, and directed that the pension be extended to divorced daughters as well.

The Madras High Court noted that the Supreme Court had described the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s approach as progressive and socially constructive and had dismissed the special leave petition.

Justice Lakshminarayanan observed that some of the judgments relied on by the Union concerned compassionate appointments or employment schemes and were not on the freedom fighters’ pension scheme.

Court recorded that the pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme is granted “in recognition of the hardship that had been undergone by freedom fighters during the independence movement,” and said that comparing that hardship with compassionate appointment would not be appropriate.

Applying the principle in Khajani Devi and the decisions that followed, court allowed the petitioner’s writ petition.

Court held that the petitioner is entitled to the pension from the date of her application, namely January 27, 2023, and quashed the impugned order of the Union. Court granted the respondents eight weeks to take necessary action.

Case Title: Thillai Lokanathan vs. The Under Secretary Ministry Of Home Affairs, Freedom Fighters And Rehabilitation Division and Others

Order Date: October 22, 2025

Bench: Justice V. Lakshminarayanan