Bombay High Court
Mrs. Sophia E. Chandelkar vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 2 December, 2016
Bench: Anoop V. Mohta
1 /3WP-8544-13-10
Nalawade
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 8544 OF 2013
Sophia E. Chandekar,
Age 65 years, Occupation-
Presently residing at
C/o. Mrs. Pushpa Daga,
Behind Church, Bhisegaon,
Tal. Karjat, District Raigad. ...Petitioner.
vs.
1. State of Maharashtra
Through Chief Secretary,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Sr. Dy. Director (Admin)
G.P.O. Mumbai.
3. Union of India
New Delhi,
through the Law Ministry,
2nd floor, Aikar Bhavan,
New Marine Lines,
Mumbai 400 020. ...Respondents.
Ms.Priyanka Ghosh for the Petitioner.
Mr. V.N.Sagare, AGP. for Respondent No.1.
Mr. T.R. Mishra along with Ashok Varma and Mr. N.R.
Prajapati for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
CORAM:ANOOP V. MOHTA AND
A.S.GADKARI, J.
DATE : 2ND DECEMBER, 2016
2 /3WP-8544-13-10
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)
1. Rule, returnable forthwith.
2. Heard finally.
3. The petitioner has challenged communication
dated 3.7.2013 issued by the Department of Posts India
through the office of the Director, Mumbai GPO (Sr. Deputy
Director, Administration, Mumbai) whereby for grant of
family pension to the petitioner who is a divorcee daughter
of the Central Government Pensioner it was insisted to
submit a copy of the confirmation from the High Court
granting a decree of divorce from her husband. The
respondent for want of such requirement not processing
the petitioner's application and that resulted into
unsettlement of her family pension claim.
4. The Full Bench of this Court in Asis Ubaldo
Rodrigues (D) by L.R.s vs. Maria Asis Rdrigues and anr.
reported in 2006 Bombay 143 (Exhibit-D) after considering
the position of Divorce Act and the Family Courts Act (66 of
1984) declared that for dissolution of marriage
requirement of confirmation of High Court is not
necessary. Insistence therefore, in spite of the position of
law, in our view, is uncalled for. There is no question,
therefore to delay the petitioner's application for settlement
of family pension for want of confirmation of decree of
divorce from the High Court. Therefore, taking all all view
of the mater we are inclined to allow the petition by
3 /3WP-8544-13-10
observing that there is no requirement of order of
confirmation for divorce decree. In the present facts and
circumstances of the case the respondent therefore is
under obligation to decide the settlement of the petitioner's
family pension claim as early as possible and preferably
within eight weeks from today.
5. We are inclined to observe that inspite of the
position of law so settled in the year 2006 without referring
to and without dealing with other specific provisions, the
claim of the petitioner has been delayed though she
otherwise is entitled for the same. Therefore, in our view,
this is a case where the respondents while granting family
pension from the date of the application has caused delay
and therefore, liable to pay interest on the due pension
amount from the date of this petition.
6. Petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.
(A.S.GADKARI, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.)
