SMT. SHIRAMABAI W/O PUNDALIK BHAVE AND OTHERS versus THE CAPTAIN, RECORD OFFICER FOR O.I.C. RECORDS, SENA CORPS ABHILEKH, GAYA, BIHAR STATE AND ANR.

Citation: [2023] 11 S.C.R. 130 · Decided: 18-08-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HIMA KOHLI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

130
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 11 S.C.R.
[2023] 11 S.C.R. 130 : 2023 INSC 744 
130
CASE DETAILS
SMT. SHIRAMABAI W/O PUNDALIK BHAVE AND OTHERS
v.
THE CAPTAIN, RECORD OFFICER FOR O.I.C. RECORDS, 
SENA CORPS ABHILEKH, GAYA, BIHAR STATE AND ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5262 of 2023)
AUGUST 18, 2023
[HIMA KOHLI AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration : Whether the order passed by the High Court 
denying the appellants-mother and her children, the entitlement to receive 
the pension payable on the demise of her husband-military personnel is 
sustainable, where the military personnel contracted a marriage with the 
appellant and two children born from their relationship, during subsistence 
of his marriage with the legally wedded wife but, subsequently a decree 
of divorce was passed, dissolving the said marriage and meanwhile, the 
military personnel was discharged from service and granted service pension. 
Service law : Pensionary beneﬁ ts – Family pension – Claim of, 
by woman cohabiting as wife with a government personnel – Denial of 
claim of family pension to the applicant and her children by the High 
Court – Sustainability of:
Held : Not sustainable – Presumption ought to have been drawn 
in favour of the validity of the marriage between the deceased and the 
applicant – More so, when during his life time, the military personnel 
sought deletion of the name of his previous wife from his service record 
and endorsement of the name of the applicant, which was duly acted upon 
by the authorities – Also the ex-wife did not claim any family pension from 
the authorities – Furthermore, two children born to the applicant, have been 
held entitled to the estate of the military personnel by the High Court – Thus, 
the applicant entitled to receive the pension payable on the demise of the 
military personnel – Children entitled to the said relief till the age of 25 
131
SMT. SHIRAMABAI v. CAPTAIN, RECORD OFFICER SENA 
CORPS ABHILEKH, GAYA, BIHAR STATE 
years – Order passed by the High Court set aside – Pension Regulation for 
the Army, 1961 – reg 219(iii). [Paras 11, 16, 20 and 21, 22]
Service law: Pensionary beneﬁ ts – Family pension – Claim of, by 
the woman cohabiting as wife with a government personnel:
Held : If a man and woman cohabit as husband and wife for a long 
duration, there is a presumption in their favour that they were living together 
as a consequence of a valid marriage and claimant would be entitled to 
family pension. [Paras 11 and 21]
Evidence Act, 1872 – s. 114 – Court may presume existence of 
certain facts – Man and woman cohabiting as husband and wife for a 
long duration – Presumption u/s. 114:
Held : There would be a presumption in favour of a marriage when 
man and woman have continuously cohabited for a long spell – However, 
the presumption is rebuttable and can be rebutted by leading unimpeachable 
evidence – When there is any circumstance that weakens such a presumption, 
courts ought not to ignore the same – Burden lies heavily on the party who 
seeks to question the cohabitation and to deprive the relationship of a legal 
sanctity. [Para 20]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013) 15 SCC 755 : [2013] 14 SCR 
1019; Dhannulal And Others v. Ganeshram And Another (2015) 12 SCC 301 
: [2015] 4 SCR 199; KattukandiEdathil Krishnan and Another v. Kattukandi 
Edathil Valsan and Others 2022 SCC OnLine SC 737; Andrahennedige 
Dinohamy and Another v. Wijetunge Liyanapatabendige Balahamy and 
Others 1927 SCC OnLine PC 51; Mohabbat Ali Khan v. Muhammad Ibrahim 
Khan And Others 1929 SCC OnLine PC 21; Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director 
of Consolidation and Others (1978) 3 SCC 527 : [1979] 1 SCR 1; S.P.S. 
Balasubramanyam v. Suruttayan alias Andali Padayachi and Others (1994) 
1 SCC 460; Gokal Chand v. Parvin Kumari alias Usha Rani (1952) 1 SCC 
713; Tulsa and Others v. Durghatiya and Others (2008) 4 SCC 520 : [2008] 
1 SCR 709; Madan Mohan Singh and Others v. Rajni Kant and Another 
(2010) 9 SCC 209 : [2010] 10 SCR 30 – referred to.
132
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 11 S.C.R.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5262 of 
2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.06.2013 of the High Court of 
Karnataka Circuit Bench at Dharwad in RSA No.6079 of 2010.
Appearances:
Rahul Joshi, Adv. for the Appellant.
K M Nataraj, ASG, R Bala, Sr. Adv., A K Kaul, Sharath Nambiar, 
Sautam Bhardwaj, Ms. Indira Bhak
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.