Proof of Customary Divorce under Section 29(2) Requires Strict Pleading and Cogent Evidence for Family Pension Eligibility

The Petitioner’s mother, Angoori Devi, was a ‘Mali’ with the NDMC who passed away on March 3, 2015

The Petitioner, claiming to be a divorced daughter residing with her parents as a dependent since 2004, applied for the transfer of her mother’s family pension

The NDMC rejected the claim on October 20, 2015, citing non-compliance with Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dismissed the Petitioner's challenge on November 1, 2018, noting she was not listed as a dependent in the mother's official forms and lacked a valid legal decree of divorce

Although a police status report confirmed the Petitioner had lived separately from her husband for 20 years following a "customary divorce", she only possessed a private ‘Deed of Dissolution of Marriage’ dated December 2, 2004

1. Whether a "customary divorce" evidenced by a private deed, without a court decree, entitles a daughter to family pension as a "divorced daughter" under Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules

2. Whether the Petitioner sufficiently established the existence and validity of a custom of divorce within her community to satisfy the requirements of Section 29(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act

Rule 54(6) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, read with Office Memorandum dated July 25, 2001, extends family pension to divorced daughters provided the divorce is valid in law

Section 29(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, saves the right to obtain dissolution of marriage via custom, but such custom must be specifically pleaded and proved to be ancient, certain, reasonable, and not opposed to public policy

The court relied on Sanjana Kumari v. Vijay Kumar and Sushma v. Rattan Deep, which establish that the burden of proving a customary divorce is heavy and requires inductive evidence (past instances, community-specific texts, or judgments) rather than mere witness statements or private deeds

The Court acknowledged the Petitioner’s hardship but held that equity cannot override the mandate of law

While the police report supported the factual separation, the Court found the "Deed of Dissolution" insufficient as it did not mention the specific custom relied upon

Applying the rigorous standards from Sanjana Kumari, the Court reasoned that customary divorce is an exception to codified law and must be proved as an established usage in a Civil Court or through cogent evidence

Since the Petitioner only produced two similar documents involving other individuals without proving a long-standing, certain community custom, she failed to meet the legal threshold of being "validly divorced" for pension eligibility

The Court granted limited relief by clarifying that the Petitioner is not inhibited from re-approaching the Department if she can subsequently obtain a legally sustainable declaration of her customary divorce from a competent forum. The Tribunal’s order was upheld