‘Matrimonial Dispute Not Divorce’: Delhi HC Restores Widow’s Right to Family Pension

The Delhi High Court recently ruled that a wife cannot be denied family pension after her husband’s death merely because matrimonial proceedings were pending between them, unless those proceedings had resulted in a divorce.

“The very fact that the petitioner had filed an application seeking maintenance from the deceased shows that there were some matrimonial disputes between the petitioner and the deceased. However, until such disputes had resulted in a divorce, the grant of family pension to the petitioner could not have been denied,” court held.

A division bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Madhu Jain passed the order on a plea by Soni Devi, who had challenged a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) ruling that granted her family pension but restricted arrears to October 16, 2014, the date she filed her Original Application, instead of August 2, 2009, when her husband had died.

Her grievance before the High Court was that the pension ought to be payable from the date of her husband’s death.

The claim of family pension by the petitioner, Soni Devi, was contested by the respondent, Union of India. It was contended that the deceased employee had not included Soni Devi’s name in the official list of family members.

Before the Tribunal, the Union claimed it had received a letter from Uttariya Railway Mazdoor Union enclosing an alleged unregistered Will of the deceased, purportedly in favour of Smt. Sita Devi.

The petitioner, however, submitted various documents to show that she was the legally wedded wife of the deceased.

The Tribunal, on the basis of those documents, held that there was no justification for the respondent, in the absence of a valid claim from any other person, to ignore the documents submitted by the petitioner and deny her the family pension. In spite of this finding, the Tribunal confined the relief of arrears of family pension to the petitioner only from the date of filing of the OA.

The Union further argued that Soni Devi did not even know about her husband’s death. They pointed out that she had continued pursuing her maintenance case, which was finally decided in her favour several months after his death. The Union also highlighted the delay on the part of Soni Devi in pursuing an appropriate application.

However, court held that while there was indeed a delay on the petitioner’s part in moving an application for the release of family pension, such delay would not disentitle her from receiving pension from the date of her husband’s death.

It added, “In these facts, we find that the denial of the family pension to the petitioner was unjustified. Merely on the basis of a letter from the Union (referred above), which itself had no claim to the grant of family pension, the respondent should not have denied the family pension to the petitioner".

Court accordingly set aside the impugned orders, but only insofar as they confined the relief to the petitioner from the date of filing of the OA, i.e., October 16, 2014, and did not grant interest on arrears.

Allowing the plea, court directed, “We direct that the petitioner shall be entitled to the grant of family pension from the date of death of the deceased, that is, August 2, 2009. The arrears shall be paid by the respondent to the petitioner within a period of four months from today, along with interest at 6% per annum".

For Petitioners: Mr. H. P. Chakravorti, Advocate (through VC).

Respondents: Mr. R. Mishra and Mr. Mukesh Tiwari, Advocates.

Case Title: SMT. SONI DEVI vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Date of order: 1 August 2025

Bench: Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Madhu Jain