A divorced wife’s family-pension claim cannot be rejected absent proof of remarriage.

The complainant alleged that the petitioner had improperly claimed family pension and created or used documents concerning her entitlement.

The Magistrate declined to take cognizance; the revisional court set aside that order and remitted the matter with a direction to take cognizance of offences under Sections 419, 420, 462 and 471(a) IPC

The petitioner sought relief under Section 482 CrPC, contending, among other things, that the complainant had been divorced, that the petitioner was the deceased’s second wife and a nominee in his service records, and that the alleged offences were not made out

The judgment’s opening states that the petition challenged the Magistrate’s cognizance order, while its reasons identify the revisional court’s order as the order under challenge

Whether the alleged divorce, without production of the divorce decree or evidence of the complainant’s remarriage, provided a basis to deny her claim to family pension and to set aside the revisional court’s direction for further proceedings.

Whether the allegations concerning creation or use of documents warranted further consideration by the trial court, and whether the petitioner could contest the ingredients of the alleged offences at the charge stage.

The Court considered Section 482 CrPC, under which the High Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction, and the alleged offences under Sections 419, 420, 462 and 471(a) IPC.

It applied the principle that an alleged divorce does not, by itself, bar a divorced wife from claiming family pension if she has not remarried; the judgment identifies no supporting statutory provision or precedent.

It further treated the absence of a divorce decree and evidence of remarriage as material to whether the complainant’s pension claim could be rejected, while leaving the alleged document offences for reconsideration by the trial court.

The Court found no material establishing either a valid divorce decree or the complainant’s remarriage. Accordingly, the petitioner’s reliance on an alleged divorce did not establish that the complainant was disentitled to claim family pension.

Given that the complainant’s status as the deceased’s wife was not disputed, the Court held that the pension dispute and allegations of creating and using documents as genuine required consideration by the trial court.

The petitioner remained at liberty to argue at the charge stage that the ingredients of Sections 419 and 420 IPC were not satisfied.

It left the petitioner at liberty to contest, at the charge stage, whether Sections 419 and 420 IPC were attracted; the allegations concerning Sections 462 and 471(a) IPC remained for consideration by the trial court.