An undisputed customary divorce qualifies a daughter for railway family pension under Rule 75.

The respondent’s father, a retired Railway employee, died on 7 April 2021; her mother had predeceased him.

The respondent had obtained a customary divorce in 2017 and, on that basis, was recorded as a dependent/divorced daughter in a revised Pension Payment Order (PPO) dated 15 May 2018.

In 2022, she obtained a mutual-consent divorce decree from the competent civil court.

The Railways subsequently denied her family pension, relying on the fact that the decree post-dated her father’s death and did not refer to the customary divorce.

The Central Administrative Tribunal allowed her application and declared her entitled to family pension under Rule 75.

The Union of India challenged that decision.

Whether a daughter whose customary divorce was recognised by the Railways before the pensioner’s death could claim family pension as a “divorced daughter” under Rule 75, despite not having obtained a court decree before the pensioner’s death

Whether the later divorce decree, which did not refer to the customary divorce, defeated or otherwise affected the respondent’s entitlement to family pension

Rule 75(19) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules includes an unmarried, widowed or divorced daughter within the relevant definition of family and does not expressly require that a divorce be declared by a competent court.

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

Relying on the Gujarat High Court’s decision in Union of India v. Sudhaben Nayak, Special Civil Application No. 324 of 2018, the Court stated that where the factum of customary divorce is accepted and unchallenged, insisting on a court decree as a condition of family pension is unjustified.

The Court also noted the cited decision in Union of India v. Mayuriben Jani, Special Civil Application No. 4792 of 2019.

The Railways had recorded the respondent as a dependent and issued the 2018 PPO on the basis of her status as a divorcee daughter, thereby recognising her customary divorce during her father’s lifetime.

The customary divorce was not disputed by the Railways.

Applying Rule 75(19) and the principle in Sudhaben Nayak, the Court held that a subsequent court decree was not required to establish entitlement in those circumstances.

Nor could the 2022 decree—obtained after the pensioner’s death and without mentioning the customary divorce—be treated as a bar; the Court considered it an additional step that did not undermine the entitlement already recognised in the PPO.

The Court expressly noted that it was unnecessary to examine the broader question of customary divorce in detail because the Railways had accepted it in this case.

It directed the authorities to comply with the Tribunal’s order within six weeks of receipt of the judgment.