Case BriefsHigh Courts

Meghalaya High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, CJ., dismissed a petition claiming the family pension.

Facts of the case were that petitioner’s father was a constable and after his superannuation, he got retired in 1991. In the year 2009, the petitioner’s father expired. After he got expired his wife represented for grant of family pension which in the beginning was not granted and eventually an order withdrawing family pension was passed by AG’s Office to the Superintendent of Police. Since in 2017 wife also expired her daughter i.e. petitioner claimed family pension which was not considered. Hence, this petition was filed before the High Court.

Petitioner submitted that this petition was maintainable by virtue of amended Rule 48 of the Meghalaya Civil Services (Pension) Rules issued by Finance (Pension Cell) Department, Government of Meghalaya. According to the aforementioned rule family for the purpose of pension constitute a daughter which includes widow daughter, till the date of marriage or remarriage or till the date, she starts earning or till she turns 25 years old.

Issue before the Court was whether petitioner (daughter) can claim family pension after the death of the wife (petitioner’s mother) was found to be weakened by the fact that petitioner was otherwise not eligible to such family pension.

The High Court found that petitioner was married and above 25 years of age and by virtue of Rule 48 a married women cannot claim the family pension. Therefore, the petition was dismissed. [Prettilla M. Sangma v. State of Meghalaya,2018 SCC OnLine Megh 175, Order dated 27-09-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Jammu and Kashmir High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Sanjay Kumar Gupta, J. directed the police Authorities to provide protection to life and liberty to a young married couple in light of threats received from parents of the girl.

The petitioner, both major, were in love with each other. They wanted to marry, parents of the boy were ready, however, girl’s parents were not. They even threatened the boy to do away with his life if he meets their daughter again. Nonetheless, being major and understanding their well-being, the petitioners contracted marriage as per Muslim Personal Law. Since the marriage between the petitioners was not acceptable to Respondents 4 to 6, they gave an open threat to kill both petitioners. Movement of the petitioners had thereby been restricted. Fearing their life and property, the petitioners approached the High Court.

The High Court gave due consideration to the facts of the case and found that both the petitioners were major and contracted marriage out if their free will. The Court placed reliance on the Supreme Court decision in Lata Singh v.  State of U.P.,(2006) 5 SCC 475,  wherein the Hon’ble Court held that a major girl is free to marry anyone she likes or live with anyone she likes. Following the ratio of the said case, the High Court directed the police Authorities to take appropriate steps for providing protection to the life and property of the petitioners. The petition was disposed of accordingly. [Kaneez Akhter v.  Director General of Police, 2018 SCC OnLine J&K 318, dated 30-05-2018]