Mumbai: After a protracted litigation of over 14 years, a senior citizen was finally relieved as the Bombay High Court recently declared her a member of her son’s family. The HC has ordered a decree in her favour, which will give her a 1/6th share in her deceased son’s insurance.
A bench of Justice Manish Pitale allowed a petition filed by Bebitai Atole, a resident of Chandrapur. She had petitioned that bench, seeking a declaration that she was the real mother and a member of her son’s family. Her son had died in an accident in 2005. She sought her share in his provident fund and insurance policies.
However, she was denied her share, as, though a trial court had accepted her as the real mother of the deceased, it did not accept her as a member of her son’s family.
“Though Bebitai established that she is the real mothe,r however, she has not proved she was dependent on her deceased son and therefore, she could not be included in the definition of family,” the trial court ruled while denying her the share of the gratuity.
The trial court premised its finding on the grounds that since Bebitai’s son was covered by the Coal Mines Provident Fund Scheme, 1948, the definition of a ‘family’ was not the same as defined in the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and also the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, 1952.
The lower court further relied on the statements of Bebitai, wherein she categorically stated that she lived with her husband and another son. It said that thus, the mother wasn’t a dependent parent and could not seek any share.
The HC bench of Justice Pitale compared the referred to the definition of family in all the three acts and concluded that the description was identical.
“A comparison of the three definitions under the said schemes and Act would show that they are identical in so far as the claim of Bebitai in the present case is concerned, because dependent parents under all the definitions are covered under the expression family,” Justice Pitale held.
“It is surprising that when definition of family under all the other Acts applicable in the present case was identical, the trial court thought it fit to hold that Bebitai did not have any share in the amount payable towards the provident fund. This aspect was clearly ignored by the lower court, therefore, it is found that it erred in holding so,” the court held. The bench thus held that Bebitai was entitled to a 1/6th share in the amounts received from insurance policies.
