&imwidth=600&imheight=450&format=webp&quality=medium)
On Thursday (August 8), the Supreme Court heard the petition of a stepmother who raised an Indian Air Force (IAF) officer, who was denied pension benefits after his death.
On Thursday (August 8), the Supreme Court heard the petition of a stepmother who raised an Indian Air Force (IAF) officer, who was denied pension benefits after his death. The court said “why should 'mother' be a static expression? Why should adoptive parents not be entitled (to pension)?"
The mother raised the deceased officer since the age of six, the court noted that a case should be viewed on facts to ascertain who played a role in nurturing and shaping the child’s life. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was quoted by news outlet Live Law, “(Mother) need not be a biological mother".
While the IAF counsel said that the apex court itself has held that 'mother' includes only 'biological mother'. And said, “Regulations are clear and they have not been challenged.” Further adding that the if law-making authority could have included 'mother' should include 'stepmother'.
During the hearing, Justice Kant also posed a hypothetical situation to the IAF counsel, he asked, “What will happen in a case where a mother abandons her child and his father, grandmother look after...then mother comes suddenly after 20-30 years saying I am entitled...on another hand, suppose mother dies due to complication at the time of delivery, stepmother comes in and raises the child...whom would you like to give the benefit?”
He added, "Your definition can be flexible and on facts you can determine who has played role of mother. Why should 'mother' be a static expression? Why should adoptive parents not be entitled (to pension)?"
The deceased officer's biological mother passed away, and his father married the petitioner. Thereafter, she has been the one looking after him. On April 30, 2008, the Air Force officer died due to ‘aluminium phosphide poisoning’. According to an internal enquiry, it was later termed as a case of ‘suicide’.
Later in 2010, the Air Force Record Office, rejected the appellant's claim for ‘Special Family Pension’, she was not even granted the ordinary family pension due to income criteria.