IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2010 / 23TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 35753 of 2009(L) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- J. BHARATHI AMMA, W/O.LATE S. MADHVAN, UNNITHAN, MADHAVAVILASAM, PATTAZHI POST, KOLLAM DIST. BY ADVS. MR.R.ARUN, MR.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE,D (PENSION GRIEVANCES CELL), 206, A WING, SENA BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-1. 2. THE RECORDS OFFICER, MADRAS REGIMENT ABHILEKH KARYALAYA RECORDS, THE MADRAS REGIMENT, POST BAG NO.1, WELLINGTON (NILGIRIS), PO- 643 231. 3. SMT. DEAVAKI AMMA, ELANJELIL VEEDU, NEELEAWARAM P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT – 691 506. R1 & R2 BY MR.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDIA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/01/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.35753/2009-L: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE MARRIAGE DEED. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE DIVORCE DEED BY MUTUAL CONSENT. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE R.2. DTD. 28/11/06. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE LEGAL HEIR CERTIFICATE. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE R.2. DTD. 27/06/07. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE R.2. DTD. 30/11/07. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 35753 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the widow of Late S.Madhavan Unnithan, who was in the service of respondents as a Havildar, with Service No.2545138W Ex Hav(Hony Nb Sub). The petitioner and her husband belong to the Nair community. Prior to the marriage of the petitioner, Late Madhavan Unnithan had married the third respondent. However, he had divorced her as per a registered deed, Ext.P2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner and her husband being Nairs, were entitled to effect divorce by executing such a registered document, as per law. However, the second respondent insisted on production of a decree of divorce for the purpose of granting family pension to the petitioner. The petitioner challenges the said action of the second respondent. 2. My attention is drawn to the decision of this court reported in Prasannakumari V. Union of India (2008(3) KLT 736), wherein a similar dispute arose for consideration. After considering the law on the point, this court has held that dissolution of a marriage between two Wpc 35753/09 2 persons belonging to the Nair community of Travancore was permissible as per a registered document, in accordance with the custom of the community. The same was recognised by the Travancore Nair Act and was a right available to the persons like the petitioner. It has also been found by this court that the said right has been kept intact by Section 29(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act. 3. In view of the above affirmative pronouncement of this court, the petitioner's claim for family pension can be considered without insisting on production of a proper decree of divorce from a court of law. In the above circumstances, the second respondent is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for family pension in accordance with law, and to pass orders thereon as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk