Disposed¶45

P.Janardhana Raju v. Union of India

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Dec 2025WP/1439/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 226 writ petition; Air Force veteran; change of wife's name in Family Pension Records; insistence on certified divorce decree; Lok Adalat compromise treated as decree; O.P.No.79/2000, Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle; Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) Hindu Marriage Act 1955; no separate Lok Adalat award; 'there is no decree in the case bundle'; NE POR for divorce letter 02.08.2023; quietus; nominee entry in service register; Justice Sumathi Jagadam; disposed of, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with directions to the respondents to treat the Lok Adalat terms of compromise as a decree and to enter the petitioner's 2nd wife's name in the service register as a nominee; no order as to costs; miscellaneous applications closed. ¶45

P.Janardhana Raju Vs Union of India — Matrimonial and Divorce | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents' action in refusing to change the name of the petitioner's wife in the Family Pension Records absent a certified copy of the divorce decree is arbitrary/illegal (as framed in the writ prayer under Article 226). +1 more

¶21

Ratio / Principle

Directing the respondents to consider the terms of compromise filed by the parties (Lok Adalat settlement of 27.10.2001) as a decree and to take appropriate steps to enter the name of the petitioner's 2nd wife in the service register as a nominee.

¶42

Key takeaways

Because the matter was settled before the Lok Adalat in the year 2001 and the parties deserved quietus on the issue, the Court considered it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition on that basis.ratio¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati (Sumathi Jagadam, J.), Writ Petition No. 1439 of 2024, decided 05.12.2025: An ex-Air Force SGT petitioner, whose first marriage was dissolved through a compromise settled before the Lok Adalat Bench, Madanapalle on 27.10.2001 in O.P.No.79 of 2000 (Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle) under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, sought change of his second wife's (Santha Lakshmi @ Sumithra, married 13.11.2002) name in the Family Pension/service records. The respondents refused, insisting on a certified copy of the divorce decree (Reference dated 09.10.2017; application returned 12.03.2019; 'NE POR for divorce' letter dated 02.08.2023); the District Court, Chittoor reported 'there is no decree in the case bundle', and the Principal District Judge, Chittoor's report confirmed the signed compromise was indexed as award no.13 though no separate award was ever passed. Holding that the parties deserved quietus to a matter settled in 2001, the Court directed the respondents to treat the terms of compromise as a decree and take appropriate steps to enter the 2nd wife's name in the service register as nominee. Writ petition disposed of; no costs; miscellaneous applications closed.

¶1

[3459]

¶2

APHC010022972024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 1439/2024

¶8

Between:

¶9

P.JANARDHANA RAJU, S/O LATE P. SIDDAMA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCC EX.SGT, EQ/ASST., R/O H.NO. 11-356, SOCIETY COLONY, MADANAPALLE, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT ( ERSTWHILE, CHITTOOR DISTRICT

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

UNION OF INDIA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI- 110011.

¶13

THE CHIEF OF THE AIR STAFF, AIR HEADQUARTERS,(VB) NEW DELHI- 11001 1 THE DIRECTORATE OF AIR VETERANS-III, 3RD FLOOR. AIR FORCE RECORD OFFICE, SUBROTO PARK, NEW DELHI - 110010

¶14

THE DIRECTORATE OF AIR VETERANSIII, 3RD FLOOR. AIR FORCE RECORD OFFICE, SUBROTO PARK, NEW DELHI - 110010

¶15

DY CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTSAF, SUBROTO PARK, NEW DELHI - 1 10010

¶16

GP CAPT, GP. CAPT AV, ( A AND N ), DIRECTORATE OF AIR VETERANS, SUBROTO PARK, NEW DELHI - 110010

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be

¶19

¶20

JS,J W.P.No.1439/2025

¶21

pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of the Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent in refusing to change the name of the wife of the petitioner in the Family Pension Records vide Reference No. Air H099798/25/1/649502/SP( PRE06)/ DAV(C/F) dated 09-10-2017 on the nebulous ground that the certified copy of divorce decree is not submitted by the petitioner as being arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, unjust enrichment, violative of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to change the name of the wife of petitioner in the Family Pension Records without insisting for the submission of certified copy of the divorce decree and pass such

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to direct the respondents to change the name of the wife of petitioner in the Family Pension Records without insisting for the submission of certified copy of the divorce decree in O.P No. 79 of 2000 passed by the Honble Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle forthwith and pass such

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶25

1.AYESHA AZMA S

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶27

1.J U M V PRASAD (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL)

¶28

¶29

JS,J W.P.No.1439/2025

¶30

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents.

¶32

The petitioner is a Veteran Air Force SGT who married one Mythreyi on 30.04.1988. The petitioner has filed O.P.No.79 of 2000 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Madanapalle for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1) (ia) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The petitioner and his first wife have filed a compromise petition before the Lok Adalat Bench at Madanapalle and the same was settled vide order dated 27.10.2001 dissolving the marriage of the petitioner and his first wife.

¶33

The petitioner thereafter married one Santha Lakshmi @ Sumithra on 13.11.2002 at Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam, Chittoor District and a marriage certificate was issued to that effect. While the things stood thus, vide Reference No.Air HQ99798/25/1/649502/SP (PRE-06)/DAV(C/F), dated 09.10.2017, the petitioner requested to change the name of his wife in the service records. The application made by the petitioner was returned on 12.03.2019 seeking rectification of his application which reads as follows:

¶34

(a) You have attached a copy of compromise petition which is not a court order of divorce decree. You are requested to forward a divorce decree from court of law for further processing of the case of endorsement of family pension”.

¶35

On 02.08.2023, the respondents have issued letter titled as “promulgation of NE POR for divorce” on 02.08.2023 requiring the petitioner to submit the copy of the divorce decree. After receipt of the letter dated 02.08.2023, the petitioner has again applied for certified copy of O.S.No.79 of 2000 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle and the District Court, Chittoor has returned the same with remark: “there is no decree in the case bundle”.

¶36

¶37

JS,J W.P.No.1439/2025

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that O.P.No.79 of 2000 for dissolution of marriage was settled before the Lok Adalat on 27.10.2001. Thereafter, the petitioner got married to one Sumithra and therefore, insisting the copy of the decree. She further argues that the afflux of time will cause hardship and therefore, requested this Court to consider the settlement before the Lok Adalat as a decree and necessary entries may be made in the interest of justice.

¶39

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the respondents have not entered the name of the second wife of the petitioner in the records as the petitioner failed to file the decree of divorce before the Court.

¶40

On 22.01.2024, this Court has called for the report from the Principal District Judge, Chittoor.

¶41

On perusal of the report, it is evident that both the parties have filed compromise petition on 27.10.2001 and the same was signed by the parties as well as their respective counsels and the Members of the Lok Adalat Bench have also affixed their signatures to the terms of compromise. Further, the record also reveals that no separate award was passed by the Lok-Adalat and returned the bundle to the Court and the concerned clerk indexed the said terms of compromise as if it was an award and assigned index no.13.

¶42

Since the matter was settled before the Lok Adalat in the year 2001 and the parties are to be quietus to this issue, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondents to consider the terms of compromise filed by the parties as a decree and take appropriate steps to enter the name of the 2^nd wife of the petitioner in the service register as a nominee.

¶43

¶44

JS,J W.P.No.1439/2025

¶45