Divorced Daughter Not Eligible for Family Pension if Divorce Occurred After Father’s Death, Rules Tripura High Court

By Our Correspondent

Agartala, May 24, 2026

In a significant ruling on the scope of family pension benefits for divorced daughters, the High Court of Tripura has held that a daughter who obtained a divorce after the death of her father cannot claim family pension under the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pension) Rules, 2017. Delivering the judgment in the case of Smt. Ujjala Rani Paul vs. Agartala Municipal Corporation & Ors., Hon’ble Justice S Datta Purkayastha observed that the legal status of a claimant at the time of the pensioner’s death is decisive for determining eligibility under the pension rules.

The writ petition, registered as WP(C) 132 of 2025, was filed by Smt. Ujjala Rani Paul, a resident of Dhaleswar, Agartala, seeking family pension following the death of her father, Late Rash Bihari Paul, who had served as a labourer under the Agartala Municipal Corporation. Rash Bihari Paul retired from service on October 1, 2004, and received pensionary benefits during his lifetime. He died on December 2, 2018, while his wife had already predeceased him.

According to the petitioner, she had married Sir Pradip Saha, but the marital relationship broke down shortly after marriage and she had allegedly been abandoned by her husband. She claimed that she had thereafter remained dependent on her father and lived with him for more than forty years. However, the formal decree of divorce was granted by the Family Court at Agartala only on October 4, 2021, through a compromise between the parties.

Following the divorce decree, the petitioner applied for family pension on February 23, 2022, under the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pension) Rules, 2017. However, the Agartala Municipal Corporation rejected her claim through a communication dated October 4, 2024, stating that the relevant government notification extending pensionary benefits to divorced daughters had not been adopted by the municipal authority. Aggrieved by the rejection, she approached the High Court seeking judicial intervention.

Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Mr. P Roy Barman, assisted by Advocate Samarjit Bhattacharjee, argued that the petitioner had effectively lived as a deserted spouse for decades and was entirely dependent on her father. It was contended that the divorce decree merely formalized an already broken marriage and that the Revised Pension Rules, 2017 nowhere specifically required that divorce must take place during the lifetime of the pensioner. The petitioner further argued that the rules did not distinguish between daughters divorced before or after the death of the pensioner and that denial of pension would amount to arbitrary discrimination among similarly situated beneficiaries. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgment in All Manipur Pensioners Association vs. State of Manipur, where arbitrary classification among pensioners had been criticized.

On the other hand, counsel for the respondents, Mr. Arijit Bhaumik, contended that the petitioner was admittedly not a divorced daughter on the date of death of her father in 2018 and had obtained divorce only in 2021. It was argued that eligibility for family pension must exist at the relevant time when the pensioner dies. The respondents relied upon Office Memoranda issued by the Government of India on September 11, 2013 and July 19, 2017, which clarified that divorced daughters may receive family pension after the death of the pensioner only if divorce proceedings had been initiated during the lifetime of the pensioner or spouse. Reference was also made to the Calcutta High Court judgment in Union of India & Ors. vs. Mita Saha Karmakar, where divorce proceedings had commenced during the father’s lifetime.

While examining the issue, Justice S Datta Purkayastha closely analyzed Rule 8 of the Revised Pension Rules, 2017, which extends family pension benefits to unmarried daughters, widowed daughters, divorced daughters, and disabled children. The Court observed that the right to family pension accrues immediately upon the death of the pensioner or spouse, and therefore the claimant must already possess the qualifying legal status at that point of time.

The Court noted that although the petitioner may have been living separately from her husband, the rules did not recognize separated married daughters as eligible beneficiaries. The judgment emphasized that at the time of her father’s death in 2018, the petitioner continued to remain legally married and had not even initiated divorce proceedings. Since the divorce petition was instituted only in 2021, the petitioner could not retrospectively acquire eligibility under the category of divorced daughter.

Justice Purkayastha also referred to the Government of India Office Memoranda clarifying that pension benefits could be extended in cases where divorce proceedings had already commenced during the lifetime of the pensioner or spouse, even if the final decree was granted later. However, the Court found that no such circumstance existed in the present case.

The Court further held that it could not expand the scope of statutory rules through judicial interpretation. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Union of India v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal, the High Court reiterated that courts are not empowered to rewrite legislation or insert words into statutory provisions under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Dismissing the writ petition, the High Court finally ruled that the petitioner did not fall within the category of divorced daughter at the relevant point of time when the family pension became payable. The Court also observed that no challenge had been made to the constitutional validity of the Rules themselves and therefore no question of arbitrariness in the statutory framework arose for consideration.

Accordingly, the Court ordered dismissal of the writ petition.

more news...