Tripura High Court Denies Family Pension to Daughter Divorced After Father’s Death

The Tripura High Court, in a recent judgement, has clarified that a daughter who obtains divorce after the death of her parent is not eligible to claim family pension. The ruling was delivered by Justice S Datta Purkayastha while interpreting the provisions of the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pension) Rules, 2017.

The Court emphasised that eligibility for family pension must be determined based on the claimant’s status at the time of the pensioner’s death. Under the applicable rules, only certain categories of daughters—namely unmarried, widowed, or divorced daughters—are entitled to receive family pension benefits.

In this case, the petitioner was married at the time of her father’s death, although she had been living separately from her husband for several years. The Court noted that mere separation does not equate to divorce under the law, and therefore, she did not fall within the category of a “divorced daughter” at the relevant time.

“Already it is discussed in the earlier paragraph that at the time of the death of the father of the petitioner, her status was not of a divorced daughter, but rather of a married daughter separated from her husband and dependent on her father,” the Court observed.

The petitioner’s father, a retired employee of the Agartala Municipal Corporation, had passed away on December 2, 2018. The petitioner stated that her husband had abandoned her shortly after marriage, and she had been residing with her father for over four decades, relying entirely on him for support.

She obtained a divorce only in October 2021 and subsequently applied for family pension in 2022. However, her claim was rejected by the municipal authorities in 2024, leading her to approach the High Court.

While acknowledging her dependency on her father, the Court held that such dependency ended upon his death. It reiterated that the legal status at the time of death is the decisive factor, not subsequent changes in personal circumstances.

“It appears that after a few days of her marriage, her husband left her in her father’s house and did not take her back again. She thus became dependent on her father but such dependency ceased to exist immediately on the death of her father,” the judgement stated.

The Court also clarified the limits of judicial interpretation in such matters. It stated that courts cannot extend or modify statutory provisions through interpretation, especially when the rules clearly define eligible categories.

“The Court under Art. 226 cannot rewrite a Rule by stretch of interpretation. This also cannot be treated as a case of discrimination amongst one homogenous class of people,” it added.

Finding no legal basis to grant relief, the Court dismissed the petition and upheld the decision of the authorities.