Divorced Daughters Entitled To Freedom Fighter Pension On Par With Unmarried Daughters: Madras High Court
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Madras, Single Bench of Justice V. Lakshminarayanan directed the Union Government to grant a divorced daughter the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension, setting aside the order that denied her claim for transfer of her deceased mother’s pension. The Court held that excluding divorced daughters from the category of dependents under the 2014 pension guidelines could not be sustained. Justice Lakshminarayanan adopted the view taken by the Supreme Court in Khajani Devi, which recognised that both the special family pension and the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme were instituted to honour the valour of those who fought or suffered for the nation’s freedom, and that any restrictive interpretation depriving their dependents of dignity would undermine the very purpose of such.
The petitioner sought transfer of the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension that had been sanctioned to her deceased mother. Her father had served in the Indian National Army in Burma and had been imprisoned by British forces, after which the family shifted to India. Both parents were recognised as freedom fighters and awarded pension by the State and Central Governments. After her mother’s death, the petitioner applied for transfer of the pension.
The petitioner had been married to a foreign national and later obtained divorce, returning to India and residing with her mother. She stated that she had been financially dependent on her parents during their lifetime and continued to remain without support owing to ill health and lack of independent income.
The petitioner earlier approached the High Court regarding State pension, and the order in that matter recorded a Tahsildar's report describing her critical health condition and lack of financial means.
In the present case, the Union Government opposed the claim citing clauses 5.2.3 and 5.2.5 of the 2014 Revised Policy Guidelines, arguing that widowed or divorced daughters were not eligible for Samman Pension. The Government asserted that pension eligibility required two conditions—absence of independent income and status of being unmarried.
The petitioner amended her prayer to also challenge clause 5.2.5 of the 2014 guidelines. The Union Government filed a detailed counter reiterating ineligibility based on the marriage factor.
The respondent relied on decisions interpreting compassionate appointment schemes and maintenance laws, while the petitioner relied on High Court and Supreme Court decisions interpreting the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme that recognised eligibility of divorced daughters on par with unmarried daughters.
The pleadings having been completed, the High Court proceeded to adjudicate the petition and assess the rival positions, focusing on the nature of the pension scheme, its object, and binding precedents dealing with divorced daughters of freedom fighters.
The Court recorded that the petitioner’s parents “were freedom fighters” and that “it is also not in dispute that the petitioner is in impoverished circumstances.” The Court noted that the sole ground for rejection was that “she underwent a marriage and did not remain unmarried, as long as her father was alive.”
The respondent’s contention was recorded: “on account of the marriage that has taken place, a lady is entitled for maintenance from her husband and not from her father and is consequently, disqualified.” The Court stated that this position “does not answer the issue that has already been resolved in Khajani Devi’s case.”
Quoting the appellate judgment in Khajani Devi, the Court extracted the following: “It would, thus, be a travesty to exclude a divorced daughter…” and “a beneficial Scheme… should not be fettered or constructed by a rigorous interpretation which tends to deprive the claimants of the benefit…” It further recorded the observation that the scheme sought “to honour the valour… of the people who laid down their lives or suffered for the cause of the country.”
The Court also recorded the Supreme Court’s speaking order dismissing the Union’s SLP in Khajani Devi: “We… are of the view that the impugned order adopts a progressive and socially constructive approach… We fully agree with this view.”
It then observed that decisions cited by the respondent—such as Jafli Devi and Laxmibai—were based on “compassionate employment schemes” and not on the freedom fighter pension scheme. The Court stated that “to compare such hardship with compassionate appointment… would not be appropriate.”
The Court further recorded that judgments cited against the petitioner “have not taken into consideration the view of the Supreme Court in Khajani Devi’s case.” Judicial discipline, the Court stated, required it to adopt the view approved by the Supreme Court.
The Court stated that “the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed.” It directed that “the petitioner is entitled to pension from the date of her application, i.e., from 27.01.2023.” It recorded that “the respondents are granted eight weeks time to do the needful.”
“The respondent shall forward the papers to the State of Tamil Nadu forthwith,” and instructed the State to “cause such enquiry as is necessary under law, and submit a report as to whether the petitioner is in impoverished circumstances and whether she was dependent on her parents during their lifetime, within a period of four weeks thereafter.”
“On receipt of the report from the State of Tamil Nadu, the Central Government shall pass appropriate orders within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the said report.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: A.P. Surya Prakasam, N. Abiragan
For the Respondent: M/s. R. Rajesh Vivekananthan, Deputy Solicitor General of India
Case Title: Thillai Lokanathan v. Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs
Case Number: WP No. 29353 of 2025
Bench: Justice V. Lakshminarayanan
