Customary Divorce Validates Claim of Divorced Daughter for Grant of Railway Family Pension

The respondent is the daughter of a deceased railway employee who retired in 1971

During her father's lifetime, the respondent underwent a customary divorce on October 12, 1978

Her father passed away in 1985, after which her mother received a family pension until her death on January 1, 2015

The respondent claimed a family pension as a divorced daughter on February 19, 2015

The Railways initially rejected the claim, asserting that the divorce only became effective in 2017 when a formal Family Court decree was obtained—long after the pensioner’s death—despite the respondent’s assertion that the decree merely formalized the 1978 customary divorce

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) ruled in favor of the respondent, leading the Union of India to challenge the decision via this writ petition

1. Whether a daughter who obtained a customary divorce during the lifetime of the government employee is eligible for a family pension under the relevant Railway rules

2. Whether the absence of the daughter's name in the pensioner's original gratuity forms precludes her from claiming family pension

The Court applied the pension rules governing Railway employees, specifically interpreting the eligibility of "dependent" divorced daughters.

It relied on the precedent set by the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Union of India v. Rekhaben D/O Gopal Bhai N. Parmar (SCA No. 1871 of 2021), which established that a customary divorce is a valid mode of dissolution of marriage for the purpose of granting family pension

The Court further adhered to the principle that a formal court decree obtained later can validate/recognize a pre-existing customary divorce

The Court reasoned that the respondent's marriage was effectively dissolved in 1978 through a customary divorce while her father was still alive, fulfilling the criteria for being a dependent divorced daughter

It dismissed the Railways' contention that the divorce was only valid from the 2017 court decree, noting that the decree itself acknowledged the 1978 dissolution

Regarding the omission of her name in pension forms, the Court prioritized the findings of the Railways' own Enquiry Officer, who, following the mother's death, recorded a clear finding that the respondent was indeed the biological and divorced daughter of the pensioner

Since the legal status was factually established and supported by prior Division Bench judgments accepted by the Railways, the respondent’s right to the pension was absolute

The Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the CAT's order. The Railways were directed to commence payment of the family pension to the respondent, effective from the date of her mother’s death (January 1, 2015), within three months of the order