'Mother' A Very Wide Term : Supreme Court Questions IAF's Denial Of Family Pension To Stepmother Of Deceased Officer

The Supreme Court recently questioned the Indian Air Force as to why it was denying pension benefit to a stepmother who raised the deceased officer-son since the age of 6 years.

"Suppose, a baby child is born and within few days or months, the mother unfortunately passes away because of some complication. The father gets married and there is a stepmother who, right from the age the child requires breastfeeding till the day he becomes an officer of Air Force, Navy, etc., if she has really looked after that child, is she not a mother?" posed Justice Surya Kant to IAF's counsel.

Giving time to the parties to address the issue, the bench of Justices Kant and N Kotiswar Singh adjourned the matter.

"Find out the comparative statutes, rules and regulations where this kind of definition is there, how the Courts have widened their meaning, why, what are the social legislations/welfare legislations, and how in their case there needs to be a liberal approach", Justice Kant told the counsels.

During the hearing, counsel for IAF justified the denial of pension, arguing that a biological mother gives birth to a child and is inherently different from a stepmother. He further contended that there are well-established criteria under the regulations (Pension Regulations for the Air Force 1961) as to who all are eligible to claim pension.

Noting that the regulations are not constitutional mandates, Justice Kant replied, "This is not something [in] the Constitution of India...the regulations are something that you have decided. What is the logic behind a regulation...? On what basis you want to deprive technically a stepmother from special pension or family pension?"

Subsequently, the IAF counsel urged that there are judgments of the Supreme Court, for instance in the context of Section 125 CrPC, holding that "mother" does not include a stepmother for the purposes of maintenance from stepson. Discounting the submission, Justice Kant said that Section 125 CrPC is "something different".

The judge further highlighted to the petitioner's counsel that there are two judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court on similar lines, in one of which the expression "mother" was widened and some benefits granted. Giving time to the counsels to prepare and argue, the bench ultimately adjourned the matter.

Briefly put, 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.

Appearance: AoR Siddharth Sangal with Advocates Richa Mishra, Harshita Agrawal, and Muskan Mangla (for appellant); ASG KM Nataraj, Sr Adv Shailesh Madiyal, AoR Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advocates S S Rebello, Debashish Bharukha, Raman Yadav, Prasenjeet Mohapatra and Anuj Srinivas Udupa (for respondents)

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