- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14980 WP No. 101475 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 101475 OF 2025 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. VIDYASHREE W/O. IRAYYA PUJAR, AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. KARADIGUDDI, TQ AND DIST. BELAGAVI – 591 103. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI – 110 011. 2. THE LIEUTENANT COLONEL, SENIOR RECORD OFFICER FOR OIC RECORDS, MARATHALI, BELAGAVI – 590 001. 3. GEETA ADAVAYYA PUJAR, AGE. MAJOR, OCC.NIL, R/O. SANNA ONI, KARADIGUDDI, BELAGAVI-01. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VENKATESH M. KHARVI, DSGI FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.2812778Y/SR/DWS/FP DATED 19/12/2024 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14980 WP No. 101475 of 2025 ANNEXURE-C2. ISSUE WRIT IN THE MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO DISPERSE THE FAMILY, PENSION AND OTHER TERMINAL BENEFITS PERTAINING TO DECEASED IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an endorsement dated 19.12.2024, by which the family pension of the petitioner is denied and the petitioner seeks a consequential mandamus for release of family pension and other terminal benefits of the deceased husband. 2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Jagadish Patil for the petitioner learned DSGI Sri.Venkatesh M.Kharvi appearing for respondent No.1. 3. The facts in brief germane are as follows: The petitioner is said to have married one Irayya Pujar, who was working as a jawan in the 2nd respondent coming under the 1st respondent. The husband of the petitioner commits suicide on 28.11.2023, by the act of pouring kerosene on himself - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14980 WP No. 101475 of 2025 and setting himself ablaze. The axe of the crime falls on the wife for abatement to suicide, by a complaint registered by the mother, which becomes a crime in Crime No.137 of 2023. The police conduct investigation and filed a charge sheet before the concerned Court, arraying the petitioner as accused and accusing the petitioner for an offence of abatement to suicide. After the filing of the charge sheet, the petitioner filed an application seeking her discharge from the array of accused. The concerned Court allows discharge application, sets the petitioner free from allegations. The said order of discharging the petitioner is called in question again by the mother in Criminal Revision Petition. The Criminal Revision petition also is said to be dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 4. Now the mother is said to have approached the Apex Court in a Special Leave Petition. Therefore the petitioner, who is entitled to family pension or other terminal benefits on the death of the husband, is not paid a penny, on the score that the mother has been agitating by filing complaint against the present petitioner for the offence of abatement to suicide. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14980 WP No. 101475 of 2025 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the concerned Court of Session has discharged the petitioner holding that there was no element of abatement to suicide present in the case at hand, which is affirmed by the Co- ordinate Bench in Criminal Revision Petition No.100433 of 2024 following the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Prakash and Others Vs.The State of Maharashtra and Another1 and Kanchan Sharma Vs.State of Uttar Pradesh and Another2 would submit that there is no warrant for the respondent No.1 to rely on the complaint of the mother or the representation of the mother to deny family pension or terminal benefits to the petitioner. 6. 6. The learned DSGI Sri.Venkatesh M. Kharvi would submit that the only reason is that the mother has represented to the Department that pension should not be released in favour of the wife as she is guilty of abatement to suicide of the son of the complainant and would submit that they have gone by only the representation. 1 2024 INSC 1020 2 2021 SCC OnLine SC 737 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14980 WP No. 101475 of 2025 7. I have given my anxious consideration to submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 8. The afore-narrated fact of the son of the complainant and the petitioner getting married is a matter of record. The husband of the petitioner is said to have committed suicide on 28.11.2023 on manifold reasons. The acts of commission of suicide of the husband, falls on the wife by registration of a crime in Crime No.137 of 2023 for offence punishable under Sections 306 and 34 of the IPC. The police conduct investigation and on filing a charge sheet, the petitioner seeks herself to be discharged from the array of accused. The concerned Court discharges the petitioner on the following reasons: “39. Charge sheet also contains wordings said to have been used by accused persons. This seems to be very unnatural. Because, according to the materials now available it is the deceased who went near the house of accused persons, shouted at accused No.1, called her to come with him. 40. Then it is alleged that these accused persons told him to die by setting himself ablaze, then deceased promptly follows their words, takes out petrol, pours on himself and sets fire. 41. This shows that the deceased had gone near the house of accused persons well prepared. Whether he really wanted to end his life or whether his intention was - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14980 WP No. 101475 of 2025 only to threaten accused persons, particularly accused No.1 is now not known. 42. But only for the reason that accused No.1 refused to live with deceased, or even for having filed a petition for maintenance, she cannot be charge sheeted with the offence punishable U/Sec. 306. by filing a petition before the competent court of law, it is not an abatement of an offence at all. 43. If the prosecution version is accepted and charges framed, then it would be equal to say that nobody should approach a court of law seeking appropriate remedy. Whether or not parties are entitled for relief is the exclusive jurisdiction of the court concerned, but it is not an offence. 44. Now coming to the other accused persons they are the parents and brother of accused No.1. The relationship between deceased and accused No.1 was not cordial, deceased was working in Army in another place. Under such circumstances, what accused No.1 could have done is a matter. She makes allegation of ill treatment. Naturally under such circumstances, a married girl will have to rush towards her parents for shelter. This may be the position in this case also. 45. From going through the materials now available, it cannot be said that there was any abatement on the part of these accused persons. At the best they can be said to have been protecting the accused No.1 from a disturbed family life. 46. The base of the prosecution is that deceased was depressed by accused No.1 filing a petition for maintenance. As already observed it is no offence and no illegal act is committed by accused No.1. 47. The deceased was also having an opportunity to put forth his contention before the court indicating his stands. That is not done. 48. So from considering materials available on record from all angles, only ground on which prosecution relies upon is filing of the petition by accused No.1 to be - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14980 WP No. 101475 of 2025 the root cause for these incidents. But that contention cannot be accepted. For these reasons I have come to the conclusion that materials now made available are insufficient to frame a charge for the offence punishable U/Sec. 306 of IPC. Under such circumstances, the accused persons have to be discharged U/Sec. 227 Cr.P.C. For these reasons I answer the point under consideration accordingly and pass the following;- ORDER Accused No.1 to 4 are hereby discharged U/Sec. 227 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable U/Sec. 306 R/w. Sec. 34 of IPC.” 9. This is called in question by the mother before this Court in Criminal Revision Petition No.100433 of 2024. The Co- ordinate Bench in terms of its Order dated 28.07.2025 dismisses the Criminal Revision Petition by affirming the order of discharge passed by the Court of Session quoted supra. The mother has now approached the Apex Court against the said orders. 10. In the light of the two orders in favour of the present petitioner and the settled principle of law, that family pension would be available to the wife and the children of the deceased, hearing the mother all over again in this petition is of no avail. Therefore the petitioner becomes entitled to the terminal benefits of the deceased husband that gets accrued in favour of the deceased in accordance with law. In that light, the following: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14980 WP No. 101475 of 2025 ORDER i. Writ Petition is allowed. ii. Mandamus issued to the respondent No.1 to settle the terminal benefits of the deceased husband in accordance with law at any rate within *Eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE KGK/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10 * Corrected vide chamber Order dated 17.11.2025 Sd/- MNPJ