Divorced Spouse Ineligible for Service Benefits; Non-Enrolled Children Retain Legal Heirship Status Following Employee's Death

Petitioner No. 1 (claiming to be the widow) and Petitioners No. 2 and 3 (daughters) of deceased Rifleman Abdul Majeed Dar sought to quash the service records of the deceased that listed private respondents No. 7–10 as his only family members.

The deceased died in the line of duty on December 12, 2020.

The official respondents refused to amend records after his death, advising the petitioners to approach the Zila Sainik Welfare Office.

Private respondents No. 7–10 contended that Petitioner No. 1 was a divorcee and thus not entitled to any benefits, supported by an earlier maintenance application where she described herself as a "divorcee" and a Legal Heir Certificate that excluded her.

A petition for a succession certificate filed by the petitioners had also been dismissed by the Principal District Judge, Anantnag.

1. Whether Petitioner No. 1 is the legally wedded wife of the deceased and entitled to be enrolled in the service records as a legal heir.

2. Whether Petitioners No. 2 and 3, being children from the first marriage, are entitled to be included in the service records and receive service benefits.

The Court applied the Indian Evidence Act principle that "facts admitted need not be proved".

The Court relied on the evidentiary value of a Legal Heir Certificate issued by a competent revenue authority (Tehsildar) and the finality of judicial orders passed by a District Judge under the Succession Act.

The Court further recognized the inherent right of legitimate children (Petitioners No. 2 and 3) to inherit and be recognized as legal heirs regardless of the marital status of the mother at the time of the father's death.

The Court found that Petitioner No. 1’s claim as a surviving spouse was invalidated by her own prior judicial admissions in maintenance proceedings where she explicitly styled herself as a "divorcee".

Under the principle that admitted facts require no further proof, the Court held that the marriage was not subsisting at the time of death.

This was further reinforced by the Legal Heir Certificate and the dismissal of her succession certificate application, which had attained finality.

The Court observed that the status of Petitioners No. 2 and 3 as biological daughters was undisputed.

Since their names were included in the official Legal Heir Certificate issued by the Tehsildar but omitted from the army's service records, there was a clear requirement to update the records to reflect the reality of the deceased's lineage.

The petition was partly allowed regarding Petitioners No. 2 and 3, directing the official respondents to include their names in the service records and release their respective shares of service/pensionary benefits in accordance with the law.