An undisputed customary divorce entitles a divorced daughter to family pension under Rule 75.

The respondent’s father, Purshottam Sagram, was a Railway employee who retired on 30 September 1991 and died on 17 February 2001.

The respondent, who had married during her father’s lifetime, obtained a customary divorce from her husband on 30 July 2005 and thereafter resided with her mother.

Following her mother’s death, the Railways issued a revised Pension Payment Order dated 15 June 2011 recognising the respondent as a dependent/divorcee daughter entitled to family pension.

Subsequently, she obtained a mutual-consent divorce decree from the Civil Court, Bhavnagar, on 4 July 2012, pursuant to a petition filed on 15 October 2011.

The Railways thereafter denied her family pension on the grounds that the court decree was obtained after the death of the employee and did not refer to the earlier customary divorce.

The Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, allowed O.A. No. 423/2024 by order dated 19 February 2026 and held her entitled to family pension under Rule 75 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules.

The Union of India challenged that decision before the High Court.

Whether a divorced daughter who has obtained a customary divorce, recognised and accepted by the Railways, is entitled to family pension under Rule 75(19) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules without producing a court decree of divorce.

Whether the subsequent civil-court divorce decree, obtained after the death of the Railway employee and without expressly mentioning the earlier customary divorce, disentitled the respondent from receiving family pension.

The Court applied Rule 75(19) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, which includes an “unmarried, widowed or divorced daughter” within the eligible family for family pension, without imposing a requirement that the divorce must be declared by a competent court.

It relied on Section 29(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which preserves rights recognised by custom to obtain dissolution of a Hindu marriage.

Following the principles stated in Union of India v. Sudhaben Nayak, Special Civil Application No. 324 of 2018, and referred to in Union of India v. Mayuriben Jani, Special Civil Application No. 4792 of 2019, the Court held that a valid and undisputed customary divorce cannot be disregarded merely because there is no court decree; insistence on such a decree would impermissibly add a qualification to the benevolent pension rule.

Rule 75 was treated as beneficial subordinate legislation intended to support eligible family members in need of family pension.

The Court found that the respondent’s status as the employee’s daughter was undisputed and that the Railways themselves had recognised her as a divorcee daughter by recording her as a dependent in the revised PPO dated 15 June 2011.

Since the customary divorce had not been challenged and had already been accepted by the Railways, it constituted a sufficient basis for eligibility under Rule 75(19), consistent with Section 29(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act and the coordinate Bench decisions.

The later civil-court decree did not extinguish or invalidate the earlier customary divorce merely because it failed to mention it; at most, the decree strengthened the respondent’s claim rather than defeating it.

The Court also considered that the civil divorce petition may have been filed upon the Railways’ instructions to facilitate payment of pension, and therefore held that the respondent could not be prejudiced by having obtained the decree.

The Railways’ objections based on the absence of a reference to customary divorce in the subsequent civil decree and the timing of that decree were rejected.

The Special Civil Application was dismissed as meritless, and the authorities were directed to comply with the Tribunal’s order within six weeks from receipt of the High Court’s judgment.