Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 37233 (CAL)

BABITA ROY CHOWDHARY v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

WP.CT/53/2026 · 2026-08-31

Atarup Banerjee, Tapabrata Chakraborty

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

31.08.2026 Item No.60 Court No.01 Avijit Mitra ML WP.CT 53 of 2026 Babita Roy Chowdhary -Versus – The Union of India & ors. Mr. Mahadev Ghosh, Ms. Shikha P. Chowdhury, Mr. Arun Kumar Paul ….for the petitioner Ms. Reshmi Bothra (through virtual mode) ….for the U.O.I. The present writ petition has been preferred by the original applicant/petitioner herein, namely, Babita Roy Chowdhary (in short, Babita) challenging an order dated 05th August, 2025 passed in the original application (in short, OA) being OA 350/00333/2024 and the order dated 29th October, 2025 passed in the review petition being RA 350/00036/2025. Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that Babita was dependent upon her mother till she expired on 15th January, 2019. The entitlement towards family pension is to be decided on the basis of dependency factor. When the facts establish that Babita was dependent upon her mother, the learned Tribunal ought not to have dismissed the OA. He further submits that Babita’s marriage was solemnized on 14th December, 1991 and subsequent thereto, a matrimonial dispute occurred for which Babita was constrained to leave her matrimonial house and return to her parents’ house. Contemporaneously, she preferred an application for maintenance in which an order was passed on 23rd December, 2011 disposing of the Babita’s application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code directing her husband to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month for her and Rs.2,000/- per month for her female child. Such order was, however, not complied with by Babita’s husband and as such, she was constrained to submit a representation to the police authorities on 20th June, 2011. The said sequence of facts was not taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal while dismissing Babita’s claim. Ms. Bothra, learned advocate appearing for the Union of India and its functionaries denies and disputes the contention of Mr. Ghosh and submits that Babita was neither a widow nor a divorcee daughter at the time of demise of her father on 3rd September, 1996 and the demise of her mother on 15th January, 2019. In view thereof, she was not entitled to the benefits of family pension in terms of 2 the relevant Government Order dated 18th September, 2014. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. Indisputably, Babita was married on 14th December, 1991. Subsequent thereto, Babita’s father, who was a railway pensioner, expired on 3rd September, 1996 and Babita’s mother was granted family pension, which she enjoyed till 15th January, 2019. Babita’s husband expired on 2nd November, 2022. From the said sequence of facts, it is explicit that Babita was a married daughter at the time of demise of her father on 3rd September, 1996 and the demise of her mother on 15th January, 2019. In the representation submitted by Babita on 20th June, 2011 to the police authorities reporting non- payment of maintenance amount as declared by the competent Court, it was stated, inter alia, that in the year 1999, she was assaulted by her husband for which she had to leave her matrimonial house at Coochbehar. However, in the representation she stated that she is a resident of Purba Jadavpur while her parental residence was at Katwa. Babita’s marriage was not dissolved but her husband expired on 2nd November, 2022 i.e., after the death of her father and mother. In the said conspectus, her claim 3 was denied moreso when, the Government order dated 18th September, 2014 does not create any right in her favour to avail family pension. The learned Tribunal upon dealing with the factual issues arrived at a specific finding and we do not find any error in the order impugned warranting interference of this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition being WP.CT 53 of 2026 is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Atarup Banerjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, A.C.J.) 4