'Mother' Needn't Be Biological Mother : Supreme Court Urges IAF To Revisit Exclusion Of Stepmothers From Family Pension

In a matter pertaining to Indian Air Force's denial of pension benefit to a stepmother who raised the deceased officer-son since the age of 6 years, the Supreme Court yesterday expressed that for welfare purposes like pension scheme, the expression 'mother' should not be a static expression.

A case should be seen on its particular facts to determination who infact played the role of a mother in the child's life, without limiting the benefit to only biological mothers, it said.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and N Kotiswar Singh heard the matter.

Questioning the limited scope of benefit under the existing regulations (Pension Regulations for the Air Force 1961), Justice Kant posed a hypothetical scenario to IAF's counsel during the hearing:

"What will happen in a case where a mother abandons her child and his father, grandmother look after...then mother comes suddenly after 20-30 years saying I am entitled...on another hand, suppose mother dies due to complication at the time of delivery, stepmother comes in and raises the child...whom would you like to give the benefit? Your definition can be flexible and on facts you can determine who has played role of mother. Why should 'mother' be a static expression? Why should adoptive parents not be entitled [to pension]?"

In similar spirit, Justice Bhuyan added, "[mother] need not be a biological mother".

The IAF counsel responded by saying that the Supreme Court itself has held that 'mother' includes only 'biological mother'. He further urged that if the law-making authority wanted, it could have expressly provided that 'mother' should include 'stepmother'. "Regulations are clear and they have not been challenged", the counsel said.

The petitioner's counsel, on the other hand, argued that pension legislations have to be interpreted with a purposive and social approach. He also highlighted that the existing regulations define a 'motherless child' as one who is not in the custody of 'mother or stepmother'; therefore. mother should be taken to include 'stepmother'.

Ultimately, impressing upon the IAF that there should be flexibility in its provision to accommodate determination on case-to-case basis, the bench adjourned the matter to September 18.

To briefly state facts of the case, when the deceased was 6 yrs old, his biological mother expired and his father got married to the appellant. The appellant took care of him since then and by 2008, he had grown up to serve as an 'Airman' at an Air Force Camp. On 30.04.2008, however, the deceased met his fate. The cause of death was 'aluminium phosphide poisoning', which was labelled as 'suicide' pursuant to an internal enquiry. In 2010, the Air Force Record Office rejected the appellant's claim for 'Special Family Pension'. She was not granted the Ordinary Family Pension either due to income criteria.

Aggrieved, the appellant approached Armed Forces Tribunal, Kochi. However, the Tribunal rejected her claim observing that a step-mother is not mother for grant of special family pension. Her claim for ordinary family pension was also rejected, noting that the combined income of the parents (roughly Rs.84,000 p.a.) was more than the prescribed limit (roughly Rs.30,000) under a Ministry of Defense letter of 1998. Ultimately, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

Case Title: JAYASHREE Y JOGI Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., Diary No. 53874-2023