Manohar Lal Mattu Vs Naval Pension Office

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO.1 TO INCLUDE THE NAME OF MRS. RASHMI MATTU AS THE LAWFUL SPOUSE OF THE PETITIONER IN THE PERSON PAYMENT ORDER (PPO), THERE BY ENTITLING HER TO FAMILY PENSION BENEFITS AND ETC.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING

¶22

IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶26

"a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction directing Respondent No.1 to include the name of Mrs. Rashmi Mattu as the lawful spouse of the Petitioner in the Pension Payment Order (PPO), thereby entitling her to family pension benefits;

¶27

b) Direct the Respondents to expedite the process and ensure that the Pension Payment Order (PPO) is updated within a stipulated time frame as determined by this Hon'ble Court;

¶28

c) Grant any such relief(s) and orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."

¶29

2. The petitioner is a retired Naval Officer, currently residing

¶30

in Bangalore, who retired from active service on

¶31

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:32550 WP No. 35704 of 2024

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

21.06.1991 after serving the Indian Navy from 27.01.1972 to 21.06.1991. The petitioner was earlier married to Smt. Usha Kiran, which marriage came to be dissolved by decree of divorce on 30.09.1997 passed by the Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in H.M.A.No.857/1997. Subsequent there to, he got married to one Smt. Rashmi Gulati on 19.04.1999 at the Arya Samaj, Civil Area, Bangalore, which marriage was later registered with the Registrar of Marriage, Krishnarajapuram, Bangalore and the marriage certificate dated 25.04.2023 came to be issued. The petitioner thereafter made a formal request to respondent No.1 for inclusion of his second wife, who has changed her name to Smt. Rashmi Mattu in the Pension Payment Order. Though the said application and request was acknowledged by the respondents, no action was taken and it is in that background that the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

¶34

3. The submission on behalf of respondent No.1 is that there had been no document which had been placed on record

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:32550 WP No. 35704 of 2024

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

indicating the divorce of the petitioner with the first wife. The application could not be considered.

¶39

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner having approached the concerned Court has received an intimation that the concerned file has been weeded out and destroyed on 23.06.2009 and as such, the certified copy is not available. The earlier photocopy has been made available. His submission is that this document having been submitted by the petitioner ought to have been taken into consideration. The divorce having occurred way back in the year 1997, the petitioner having remarried, it was but required that the interest of the second wife of the petitioner be protected by including her name in the Pension Payment Order.

¶40

5. Heard Sri. Thakur Rishabha Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Shanthi Bhushan H., learned DSGI for respondent No.1 and Sri. S. Rajashekar, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the papers.

¶41

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:32550 WP No. 35704 of 2024

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

6. The documents which have been placed on record would indicate that there is indeed a divorce of the petitioner from the first wife and the children of the petitioner are now major would not be entitled to family pension. The registration of marriage of the petitioner with Smt. Rashmi Gulati before the Arya Samaj on 19.04.1999, which is registered with the Registrar of Marriage on 25.04.2023, as the respondent had requested for such registration on the ground that the Arya Samaj marriage certificate was not acceptable by the respondent. The petitioner having produced these documents, it was but required for the respondents to consider those documents and make necessary entries. The same not having been done, this Court passes the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

[I] The petition is allowed; and

¶46

[II] A Mandamus is issued directing respondent No.1 to consider the documents submitted by the petitioner and include the name of Smt. Rashmi Mattu, as the

¶47