SUPREME COURT QUESTIONS IAF'S DENIAL OF PENSION TO OFFICER'S STEPMOTHER:

The Supreme Court recently asked the Indian Air Force to explain why it was denying pension benefits to a stepmother who had raised the deceased officer from the age of six.

"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.

The bench of Justices Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh granted time to the parties to address the issue and 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, the counsel for the IAF defended the denial of pension, arguing that a biological mother, by virtue of giving birth, is fundamentally different from a stepmother. He also submitted that the Pension Regulations for the Air Force, 1961, clearly lay down the eligibility criteria for claiming pension benefits.

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?"

During the hearing, the counsel for the Indian Air Force (IAF) defended the denial of pension benefits by arguing that a biological mother, having given birth to a child, is fundamentally different from a stepmother. He further contended that the eligibility to claim pension is governed by specific and well-established criteria outlined in the Pension Regulations for the Air Force, 1961.

In support of his argument, the counsel referred to Supreme Court judgments interpreting Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which held that the term "mother" does not extend to include a stepmother for the purpose of maintenance from a stepson. However, Justice Kant discounted this submission, noting that the provisions of Section 125 CrPC were "something different" and not directly applicable to the present context.

Justice Kant also drew the attention of the appellant’s counsel to two judgments delivered by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on similar issues, where, in one instance, the expression "mother" was given an expanded interpretation, resulting in the grant of certain benefits. Granting time to the counsels to prepare their arguments more thoroughly, the bench eventually adjourned the matter.

Briefly stated, the deceased officer lost his biological mother at the young age of six. Subsequently, his father remarried, and the appellant — his stepmother — took care of him from then onwards. By 2008, the deceased had grown up and was serving as an 'Airman' at an Air Force Camp. Tragically, on 30.04.2008, he passed away. The cause of death was determined to be 'aluminium phosphide poisoning,' which, following an internal inquiry, was categorized as a case of suicide.

In 2010, the Air Force Record Office rejected the appellant’s claim for a 'Special Family Pension.' She was also denied an Ordinary Family Pension on the grounds that she did not meet the income eligibility criteria.

Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the Armed Forces Tribunal in Kochi. However, the Tribunal dismissed her claim, holding that a stepmother could not be considered a "mother" for the purpose of granting special family pension. Her claim for an ordinary family pension was similarly rejected, with the Tribunal noting that the combined annual income of the parents (approximately Rs. 84,000) exceeded the prescribed limit (around Rs. 30,000) as per a 1998 Ministry of Defense letter. Ultimately, the appellant brought her case before the Supreme Court.

News