Judgment Virender Singh, J. 1. The petitioner herein is seeking the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release family pension to her in lieu of the services of her husband-Sepoy Rawail Singh who, according to her, is missing since February, 1996. The other relief sought by her is that the respondents be directed to trace her husband and to give full details of the circumstances in which he is missing from his Unit since 5.2.1996. 2. Shorn off unnecessary details, the brief diary of the assertions made by the petitioner is that her husband/Ex-Sepoy Rawail Singh (No. 10465817) was initially enrolled with 102 Infantry Battalion (Territorial Army) and he served that Battalion from 19.8.1980 to 31.8.1995. Therefore, he had joined duty as DSC Corps Centre, Cannanore (Kerala) on 2.1.1996. On 20.2.1996, the petitioner received a telegram that her husband was absent from the Unit since 5.2.1996. She wrote a letter to the Commanding Officer, seeking the details. A letter was sent to her by the Commanding Officer on 11.3.1996, informing that her husband was absent from the Unit since 5.2.1996. The petitioner wrote several letters to the concerned authorities but to no avail. Thereafter, she sent a legal notice through her counsel on 22.5.1996. In response thereof, she received a letter from the respondents informing that her husband had been declared as a deserter after the matter was investigated by a lawfully constituted Court of Enquiry and that the Superintendent of Police, Ambala was also informed of the said desertion as per military laws and was asked for his immediate apprehension. The stand of the petitioner is that she went to Cannanore (Kerala) and met certain officers, but no clue was available about her husband. She was informed by certain colleagues of her husband that the mental condition of her husband was not good and that two Jawans were also employed for his guard. The petitioner thereafter sent another notice dated 3.4.1997 to the Commanding Officer, DSC Records Cannanore for payment/family pension etc. with regard to her husband on the basis of certain papers duly sent through Zila Sainik Board, Ambala. In response to the said notice, certain correspondence took place between the petitioner and the authorities concerned but no family pension has been released to the petitioner till date. Hence, this petition. 3. with regard to her husband on the basis of certain papers duly sent through Zila Sainik Board, Ambala. In response to the said notice, certain correspondence took place between the petitioner and the authorities concerned but no family pension has been released to the petitioner till date. Hence, this petition. 3. On being noticed by the Court, a reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents in which it has been stated that the husband of the petitioner was initially enrolled in 101 Infantry Battalion (Territorial Army) on 19.8.1980 and he had rendered 5 years 112 days embodied service. He was discharged from the Territorial Army Service on 31.8.1995 (AN) under Rule 14-A of Territorial Army Rules, 1948. Thereafter he had got himself re-enrolled in Defence Security Corps on 30.12.1995. While getting training at Centre Cannanore (Kerala), he had willfully absented himself from the Unit Lines on 5.2.1996 at 1600 hours (4-00 PM) and thereafter he did not report back to the said centre. He was declared illegally absent w.e.f. 5.2.1996 by a Regular Court of Inquiry held at the Centre on 20.3.1996 and was declared deserter w.e.f, 5.2.1996. It was further submitted that Apprehension Roll regarding the husband of the petitioner was issued to the police authorities from the Centre. However, neither the police authorities could arrest him nor he had reported back to the Defence Security Corps Centre. The stand of the respondents further is that the husband of the petitioner was dismissed from service w.e.f. 6.5.1999 under Section 20 of the Army Act read with Rule 17 of the Army Rules by the orders of the competent authority and that according to Rule 113(a) of the Pension Regulations for the Army Part 1 (1961), an individual who is dismissed under the provisions of the Army Act, is ineligible for pension or gratuity in respect of his previous service. 4. We have heard Sh. Bhag Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sh. Gurpreet Singh Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for Union of India and have also perused the petition, the reply and the other documents attached thereto. 5. In our opinion, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for because her husband was dismissed from service under Section 20 of the Army Act read with Rule 17 of the Army Rules. The petitioner has not challenged the dismissal of her husband. 5. In our opinion, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for because her husband was dismissed from service under Section 20 of the Army Act read with Rule 17 of the Army Rules. The petitioner has not challenged the dismissal of her husband. Therefore, this Court cannot issue a direction for payment of family pension to her ignoring Rule 113(a) of the Pension Regulations . 6. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed.