The Supreme Court recently raised serious questions against the Indian Air Force (IAF) for denying family pension to a stepmother who had raised the deceased officer since he was just six years old.
During the hearing, Justice Surya Kant asked the IAF's counsel a crucial question,
"Suppose a baby is born and, within days or months, the mother passes away due to complications. The father remarries, and the stepmother takes care of the child — from the stage of breastfeeding till the child grows up to become an officer. In such a case, is she not a mother?"
Read Also:- Supreme Court: Arbitral Award for Claims Not Included in IBC Resolution Plan Cannot Be Enforced
The bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh, decided to adjourn the matter, giving time to both parties to further address the issue.
Justice Kant further instructed,
"Find out the comparative statutes, rules, and regulations where courts have widened the definition of 'mother'. See why and how social and welfare legislations demand a more liberal approach."
During the arguments, the counsel for the IAF defended their stand by saying that a biological mother is naturally different from a stepmother. He added that the Pension Regulations for the Air Force, 1961, clearly mention who is eligible for a pension and that a stepmother is not included under it.
However, Justice Kant pointed out that these regulations are not constitutional mandates.
"This is not the Constitution of India. These are rules made by you. What is the logic behind such a regulation? On what basis do you want to deprive a stepmother from receiving a family pension?"
The IAF's counsel also referred to some Supreme Court judgments regarding Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which mention that a stepmother is not considered a 'mother' for maintenance purposes. Justice Kant quickly responded that the context under Section 125 CrPC is "something different" and should not be compared with family pension claims.
The Court also noted that there are judgments from the Punjab and Haryana High Court where the definition of "mother" was widened to grant similar benefits.
The case relates to a situation where the biological mother of the deceased officer died when he was just six years old. Afterward, his father remarried, and the appellant (stepmother) took full care of the child. By 2008, he had become an Airman at an Air Force camp. Unfortunately, on April 30, 2008, he died due to aluminium phosphide poisoning, which was officially declared a suicide after an internal inquiry.
In 2010, the Air Force Record Office denied the appellant’s claim for Special Family Pension. She was also not granted an Ordinary Family Pension due to the combined income of the parents exceeding the permissible limit set by a 1998 Ministry of Defense letter.
Aggrieved by the decision, the appellant first approached the Armed Forces Tribunal at Kochi. However, the Tribunal rejected her claim, stating that a stepmother is not considered a mother under the pension rules. They also noted that her income exceeded the required limit for claiming ordinary family pension.
Left with no other option, the appellant finally moved to the Supreme Court, seeking justice.
Case Title:- JAYASHREE Y JOGI versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, Diary No. 53874-2023.
Appearance for Appellant: Siddharth Sangal (AoR) along with Advocates Richa Mishra, Harshita Agrawal, and Muskan Mangla.
Appearance for Respondents: ASG KM Nataraj, Senior Advocate Shailesh Madiyal, AoR Mukesh Kumar Maroria, along with Advocates S S Rebello, Debashish Bharukha, Raman Yadav, Prasenjeet Mohapatra, and Anuj Srinivas Udupa.
