39 years regarding the missing of her husband. It appears that only to sustain a claim for family pension she approached the Circle Inspector and obtained Ext.P1. We can very well appreciate the agony of an ordinary Indian woman who misses the husband. In the pleadings that agony is conspicuously missing. In this context, the defence plea accepted by the Tribunal that Kunjuraman, who contracted plural marriage, might be residing somewhere else with his second wife assumes significance. It appears that, long before the discharge, Kunjuraman deserted the petitioner and contracted another marriage. It is thereupon, as the Tribunal inferred, Kunjuraman might have been discharged from service upon the complaint of the petitioner. There is little chance for he coming to the petitioner after discharge. In this view, the allegation that Kunjuraman was missing since 1969 while residing with the petitioner cannot be taken as gospel truth. It appears that having found that there is little chance for Kunjuraman turning back, the petitioner advances the plea that since Kunjuraman is not heard for long, he might have dead and therefore the petitioner is entitled to family pension. Other than the petitioner filing a petition before the Circle Inspector of Police to obtain Ext.P1 appended with the application before the Tribunal, petitioner had not made any enquiry about Kunjuraman.
