Armed Forces Tribunal
Cpl Vipin vs UOI & Others on 11 February 2026
**ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, JAIPUR**
**(CIRCUIT BENCH, JODHPUR)**
**(Through Video Conferencing)**
**7.**
**OA 200/2025**
**No 970487B Cpl Vipin, Electro Fit, S/o Shri Sohanlal, Resident of Ratanpura, Post Hadyal, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu, Rajasthan, PIN 331 023**
** .... Applicant**
**Versus**
1. **1. UOI, through the Ministry of Defence, New Delhi – 110 011**
2. **2. Chief of the Air Staff, Air HQ, Vayu Bhawan, New Delhi**
3. **3. The Commanding Officer, 761 SU Air Force, c/o 56 APO (Performa Party)**
4. **4. Pooja Kumari, d/o Dharmpal Kashnia, (wife of Cpl Vipin) Resident of Jhadsar Chhota, Post Jhadsar Chhota, Tehsil Taranagar, District churu, Rajasthan – 331 023**
** .... Respondents**
**For Applicant**
**For Respondents**
**: Mr. BL Swami, Advocate**
**: Mr. Samir Shrimali, Advocate**
**Capt Vishaka Bhonsale, OIC Legal Cell,**
**HQ 12 Corps**
**CORAM:**
**HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, MEMBER (J)**
**HON'BLE MR. SANJIV MITTAL, MEMBER (A)**
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
**O R D E R**
**11.02.2026**
1. 1. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the applicant has filed this OA praying for quashing and setting aside the Impugned Order dated 30/6/2025, Annexure A/6, passed by the Non Applicant No 2, wherein a maintenance grant of Rs 16,300/- has been granted to the Non Applicant No 4, ie, wife of the applicant herein, retrospectively from February 2025. He further submits that the impugned Order ibid kindly be dismissed as void ab initio being tainted with concealment and misleading as if there is no application. As an interim relief, the applicant has also prayed for stay of the impugned order dated 30/6/2025, Annexure A/4/(sic) A/6.
2. We have heard the counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.
3. Perusal of record including the reply statement filed by the Respondents reveal that the Order dated 30/6/2025, Annexure A/6, was passed by the Respondents No 2, by exercising powers vested under Section 92 (i) of the Air Force Act, 1950 read with Rule 162 of the Air Force Rules, 1969, in so far as grant of maintenance allowance to the spouse and children of the airmen. Further, it is the moral, social and legal responsibility of the Air Warriors to maintain and sustain his legally wedded wife and child/children till the marriage is valid and not nullified by any court order. Further, validity of Section 92 (i) of the Act has been tested many a times by various courts and repeatedly the Courts have applauded and in the case of Virender Kumar Vs UOI & Ors, WP Civil No 13556 of 2021 passed the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its Order dated 06/1/2023 has upheld the validity of Section 92 (i) and AFO 03/2013.
4. Perusal of Impugned Order dated 30/6/2025, passed by the Chief of the Air Staff, reveals that Smt Pooja Kumari, wife of the applicant, has been granted maintenance allowance of Rs 16,300/- pm wef 06/2/2025 for a period of three years at a time till reunion or divorce or grant of maintenance allowance by civil court or discharge/retirement of the applicant subject to Air Force Act 1950 or any material change in facts and circumstances, whichever is earlier.
5. In view of the foregoing and since the order was passed after taking into consideration the entire gamut of issue involved between the estranged couple, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in granting the Maintenance Allowance to the estranged wife of the applicant for her sustenance in terms of extant rules/provisions on the subject, warranting our interference in the matter.
6. Resultantly, prayer of the applicant for stay of maintenance allowance granted to the wife of the applicant has no merit and is, therefore, rejected. However, the applicant shall be at liberty to file a fresh Representation before the Competent Authority for his perceived or other grievances in this matter within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. We expect the Respondents to take a final decision on the Representation to be submitted by the applicant with his fresh set of grievances within four months from the date of receipt of such a Representation. The outcome thereof may be intimated to the applicant.
7. The OA is disposed off accordingly. No order on costs.
8. File be consigned to record.
(SANJIV MITTAL) MEMBER (A) cda/-
(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (J)