Some months before D. Ramu, an Army Naik, was to be discharged from service on medical grounds in 2002, he was required to submit a joint photograph with his wife Anuradha, whom he had married in 1991. Anuradha was his authorised “next of kin” as per records of the Corps of Army Air Defence (AAD). Post-discharge, he received pension till his death in April 2010.
Thereafter, the Assistant Director, Zilla Sainik Welfare Office, Mahabubnagar in Telangana, received an application from one D. Padma stating she was Ramu’s widow and sought grant of family pension. The officer in charge (Records), AAD Records, however, informed Ms. Padma her name did not tally with details of spouse mentioned in Ramu’s service documents.
It emerged that Ramu had married Ms. Padma in June 2003, years after Anuradha allegedly deserted him. He had not divorced Anuradha. Ms. Padma had begotten three children from Ramu. The Andhra Pradesh government’s family ration card issued in 2007 to Ramu mentioned Ms. Padma as his wife and had the names of her first two children. Their third child was born later.
Thereafter in September 2010, the Army authorities received another petition seeking disbursal of Ramu’s death benefits to Anuradha and Ms. Padma with 25% share for the first wife and remaining for the second wife.
The Army authorities were perplexed when Ms. Padma not only contested this claim of Ramu having been previously married to Anuradha but also said the application for pension received in Anuradha’s name was actually sent by Ramu’s sister Suseela.
Facts that emerged during an investigation by the Zilla Sainik Welfare Office and police startled the authorities. The woman, who had applied for pension in Anuradha’s name, admitted that she was indeed Ramu’s sister. It so happened that Ramu, at the time of his discharge, was unable to legally substitute Ms. Padma as his spouse since he had not divorced Anuradha. Therefore, on the advise of someone, he had asked Suseela to pose for a joint photograph with him and submitted it to the AAD passing it of as his wife Anuradha. He did not foresee the complications after his lifetime.
After Suseela’s lie stood exposed, Ms. Padma sought to be declared as Ramu’s “next of kin” and be granted the pension.
Lengthy battle
A lengthy and unsuccessful battle ensued at different forums, including the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Eventually, Ms. Padma approached the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chennai Circuit Bench at Hyderabad, challenging the rejection of family pension.
After hearing counsel, the Tribunal’s members, Justice K. Harilal and Lt. General Bobby Cherian Mathews, last month delivered the orders in the case.
While holding that since Ramu had married Ms. Padma during the lifetime of his first wife, the marriage was void, they took note of other aspects to recognise her claim for pension. The tribunal said Ramu had tried to substitute the name of his second wife in the records but was unable to do so due to legal reasons. Besides, the whereabouts Anuradha were not known to him.
The tribunal then addressed the question whether Ms. Padma’s “sustained cohabitation” with Ramu would give rise to any presumption of legal status of wife and if she could be considered as the late soldier’s widow.
Citing several verdicts by the Supreme Court, the tribunal held that the continuous cohabitation of Ms. Padma and Ramu could be presumed to be a “lawful marriage” as they were living as husband and wife. “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.
However, keeping in consonance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others Vs Tarsem Singh, the tribunal said the pension arrears will be restricted to three years prior to the date of filing of the original application (April 3, 2023). The arrears shall be paid within four months of the receipt of the tribunal’s order.
