Kanta Devi v. Union Of India And Others

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner is a widow of an ex-serviceman who complained that she was denied family pension solely because her marriage to the ex-serviceman took place after his retirement from active service. This denial stemmed from para 6 of Army Instruction No. 51 of 1980, which defined “Family” to include “wife,” but Note (2) stated that a marriage after retirement would not be recognised for the purpose of family pension. The petitioner challenged the validity and reasonableness of this provision before the court.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether Note (2) to para 6 of Army Instruction No. 51 of 1980, which refuses to recognise marriages contracted after retirement for family pension purposes, is unreasonable/irrational and therefore liable to be struck down.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court agreed with the petitioner that the impugned Note (2) was unreasonable. It rejected the underlying assumption supporting the restriction—namely, the “stand and submission” that marriages after retirement are performed with the objective of securing family pension—calling this way of thinking “abhorrent.”

The court reasoned that armed forces personnel often retire early and may remain of marriageable age, and thus may genuinely need companionship and support, particularly “in times of distress.” Since family pension becomes payable upon the death of the incumbent, the court viewed the Note’s exclusion as especially severe: it described the rider as “harsh and heartless” because it denied pensionary support to those who shared the ex-serviceman’s post-retirement difficulties.

On this basis, the court found Note (2) irrational and held it could not be sustained.

Holding and Implications

ALLOWED; NOTE (2) STRUCK DOWN. The court struck down Note (2) to para 6 of Army Instruction No. 51 of 1980 on the ground of irrationality and directed the respondents to pay family pension to the petitioner as though the Army Instruction had not contained Note (2).

The respondents were directed to take all required actions within three months from the date of the order. Costs were assessed at Rs 5000. The opinion does not discuss broader implications beyond granting the petitioner family pension and invalidating the specific note.