Dismissed¶¶23

Neelam v. Union of India Th Its Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi and Others

J&K HC15 Oct 2025WP(C)/2883/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Family pension — divorced daughter of ex-serviceman — eligibility verification via NIA service records showing petitioner not recorded as daughter — AFT dismissed OA No. 188/2022 citing two conflicting divorce deeds (13.12.1996 and 2010), doubtful unstamped/unverified Talaknama, post-divorce birth of son (13.11.1997) and maintenance till 2010 as manipulation and fabrication — High Court upheld Tribunal's factual findings, dismissed WP(C) 2883/2025, left petitioner at liberty to pursue civil-court remedy and re-lodge pension claim if tenable.

What did the court decide?

The view taken by the AFT (dismissing the petitioner's OA) is correct and unexceptional. ¶¶19

Neelam Vs Union of India Th Its Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi and Others — J&K HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, claiming to be a divorced daughter of the late ex-serviceman Misree and dependent upon him, is entitled to family pension, and whether the AFT's dismissal of her claim was correct.

¶¶20

Court's answer

The view taken by the AFT (dismissing the petitioner's OA) is correct and unexceptional.

¶¶19

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner has not substantiated her plea that she was a divorced daughter of the ex-servicemen Misree and dependent upon him.

¶¶20

Key takeaways

Production of two divorce deeds and receipt of maintenance from the husband for almost 14 years after the alleged divorce place the petitioner's claim in serious doubt.ratio¶¶20
This Court does not intend to take a view different from the one taken by the AFT on the questions of fact.ratio¶¶21
The petitioner is left at liberty to seek an appropriate remedy from the competent Civil Court and thereafter lodge her claim for pension, if tenable under law.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2883/2025, High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu, decided 15.10.2025 (Sanjeev Kumar and Sanjay Parihar, JJ.). Smt. Neelam challenged the Armed Forces Tribunal's order/judgment dated 13.05.2025 dismissing her OA No. 188 of 2022 claiming family pension as the divorced daughter of late Ex-SWR Misree, dependent upon him. The Tribunal had found two divorce deeds (one dated 13.12.1996, another of 2010) whose validity could not be determined, doubted the 13.12.1996 Talaknama (not on stamp paper, unverified by any 'Imam Maszid Sharif'), noted a son born on 13.11.1997 after the alleged divorce, and maintenance received till 2010, concluding the dependency plea was manipulated and fabricated. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's view as correct and unexceptional, declined to disturb its factual findings, and dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merit, leaving the petitioner free to seek an appropriate remedy from the competent Civil Court and lodge her pension claim if tenable under law.

¶1

Sr. No. 32

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU

¶3

WP(C) No. 2883/2025

¶4

Smt. Neelam …. Petitioner(s)

¶5

Through:None. V/s

¶6

Union of India & Ors. …..Respondent(s)

¶7

Through:None.

¶8

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR JUDGE.

¶9

ORDER

¶10

15.10.2025

¶11

Impugned in this petition filed by the petitioner is an order and judgment dated 13.05.2025 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bank Service in OA No. 188 of 2022 titled “Smt. Neelam vs. Union of India & Ors.” whereby the AFT dismissed the OA of the petitioner for seeking “Family Pension”.

¶12

Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of this petition are that the Ex. SWR (Late) Misree was discharged on completion of his term and granted service pension. While he was receiving service pension from the Indian Army, Late Misree, the father of the petitioner herein died on 17.01.1992. The respondents granted family Pension to his wife Keser Bibi vide PCDA, Allahabad PPO No. F/SF/PRE-64/01330/03 with effect from 18.01.1992. The wife, Keser Bibi also died on 18.12.1996. After about 22 years of the death of Keser Bibi, an application was moved by the petitioner on 03.11.2018 claiming family pension on the ground that she was a divorced daughter of Late Mr. Misree and Keser Bibi.

¶13

With a view to verifying the eligibility criteria of the petitioner for grant of family Pension, service documents of the Solider were requisitioned by the Records JAK RIF from the National Archives of India (NIA).

¶14

¶15

From the service documents, it was found that the name of the petitioner was not recorded as daughter of the Army Personnel Misree and, accordingly, vide letter dated 23.05.2023, the petitioner was advised to submit documents for further consideration of her claim.

¶16

Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed the petition OA No. 188/2022 before the AFT. The AFT having considered the rival contentions came to the conclusion that in view of the material on record, there were two divorce deeds produced by the petitioner, one executed on 13.12.1996 and other in the year 2010 and, therefore, it was difficult to determine which one was a valid and genuine document.

¶17

The AFT seriously doubted the execution of Talaknama on 13.12.1996 which was neither prepared on stamp paper nor was verified by any „Imam Maszid Sharif‟ . AFT also took note of the fact that if the divorce had taken place on 13.12.1996, how the son was born to the petitioner from the divorced husband on 13.11.1997. It also came on record that despite the petitioner claiming to have been divorced on 13.12.1996, she had been receiving maintenance from her husband till the year 2010.

¶18

Taking all these facts into consideration, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that plea of the petitioner that she was a divorced daughter of the Ex-servicemen and dependent upon him was found to be a result of manipulation and fabrication.

¶19

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the view taken by the AFT is correct and unexceptional.

¶20

The petitioner has not been able to substantiate her plea that she was a divorced daughter of the ex-servicemen Misree and dependent upon him. Production of two divorce deeds and receiving maintenance from the husband for almost 14 years after the alleged divorce put the claim of the petitioner in a serious doubt.

¶21

The Tribunal has returned its finding on the aforesaid aspect and we do not intend to take a view different from the one taken by the AFT on the questions of facts.

¶22

¶23

For all these reasons, the writ petition is found devoid of any merit, and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶24

We, however, leave it open to the petitioner to seek an appropriate remedy from the competent Civil Court and then lodge her claim for pension, if tenable under law.

¶25

(Sanjay Parihar) (Sanjeev Kumar) Judge Judge

¶26

JAMMU 15.10.2025 NEHA-1

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order and judgment dated 13.05.2025 of the Armed Forces Tribunal dismissing the petitioner's OA No. 188 of 2022 (Smt. Neelam vs. Union of India & Ors.) by which she sought family pension.¶¶11
Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bank Service · 13.05.2025
Prior proceeding
Ex-SWR (Late) Misree was discharged on completion of his term and granted service pension.¶¶12
Prior proceeding
Late Misree, father of the petitioner, died on 17.01.1992 while receiving service pension from the Indian Army.¶¶12
Prior proceeding
Respondents granted family pension to Misree's wife Keser Bibi vide PCDA, Allahabad PPO No. F/SF/PRE-64/01330/03 with effect from 18.01.1992.¶¶12
Prior proceeding
Keser Bibi died on 18.12.1996.¶¶12
Prior proceeding
About 22 years after Keser Bibi's death, the petitioner applied on 03.11.2018 for family pension claiming to be a divorced daughter of Late Mr. Misree and Keser Bibi.¶¶12
Prior proceeding
To verify eligibility, Records JAK RIF requisitioned the soldier's service documents from the National Archives of India (NIA).¶¶13
Prior proceeding
Service documents did not record the petitioner as daughter of the Army Personnel Misree.¶¶15
Prior proceeding
Vide letter dated 23.05.2023 the petitioner was advised to submit documents for further consideration of her claim.¶¶15
Prior proceeding
Petitioner filed OA No. 188/2022 before the AFT.¶¶16
Prior proceeding
AFT found two divorce deeds produced by the petitioner — one executed on 13.12.1996 and another in 2010 — making it difficult to determine which was valid and genuine.¶¶16
Prior proceeding
AFT seriously doubted the execution of the 13.12.1996 Talaknama: it was neither prepared on stamp paper nor verified by any 'Imam Maszid Sharif'.¶¶17
Prior proceeding
AFT noted that a son was born to the petitioner from the divorced husband on 13.11.1997 despite the alleged divorce of 13.12.1996.¶¶17
Prior proceeding
Despite claiming divorce on 13.12.1996, the petitioner had been receiving maintenance from her husband till the year 2010.¶¶17
Prior proceeding
Tribunal concluded that the petitioner's plea of being a divorced daughter of the Ex-servicemen and dependent upon him was a result of manipulation and fabrication.¶¶18

Neelam v. Union of India Th Its Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neelam v. Union of India Th Its Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ut of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors. Vs Abdul Rashid Malik and Ors.

Ut of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors. Vs Vijay Kumar

Ut of Jammu and Kashmir Vs Parveen Singh

B H S Reality Pvt. Ltd. Th Aditya Malhotra Vs Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited Th Its Authorised Officer and Another

Union of India Th. Secretary Ministry of Defence and Others Vs Anita Devi

Ut of J and K Th Commissioner/Secretary to Govt Dept. of Food Civil Supplies and Others Vs Chamel Singh