G. S. SINGHVI, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against order dated 1. 3. 2004, passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 3994 of 2002, whereby the appellants claim for grant of pension under Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (for short "the Scheme of 1980"), was rejected. The appellants father Shri Maganlal Bikhabhai was declared as freedom figher. Vide order dated July 3, 1973, the Government of India sanctioned pension in his favour under Swatantra Samman Pension Scheme, 1972, which was, later on, replaced by the Scheme of 1980. He continued to draw pension till his death on 23. 2. 1999. He was survived by four sons and three daughters including the appellant, all of whom were married during his life time. However, the marriage of the appellant is said to have been dissolved vide deed dated 20th April, 1998. ( 2 ) AFTER the demise of her father, the appellant represented to the concerned authority of the Government of Gujarat for grant of pension under the Scheme of 1980, by claiming herself to be the dependent of the deceased. The concerned authority asked her to approach the Government of India, which had the power to sanction pension to the freedom fighters and their dependents. Thereupon the appellant made representation to the Government of India. The latter rejected the appellants claim on the premises that the Scheme of 1980 does not contemplate grant of pension to the divorcee daughter. ( 3 ) THE appellant challenged the decision of the Government of India in Special Civil Application No. 3994 of 2001. She pleaded that being a dependent of the deceased freedom fighter, she was entitled to receive pension. ( 4 ) IN the counter affidavit dated 6. 6. 2002 filed by Shri V. P. Kaushik, Section Officer in the Ministry of Home Affairs, it was averred that the divorcee daughter does not fall within the ambit of "family" and as such the appellant was not entitled to pension, by being treated as a dependent of late Shri Maganlal Bikhabhai. ( 5 ) AFTER considering the rival pleadings, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Special Civil Application. ( 5 ) AFTER considering the rival pleadings, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Special Civil Application. ( 6 ) SHRI Ramanand Singh assailed the order of the learned Single Judge and argued that the view taken by her on the appellants entitlement to receive pension as a dependent of late Shri Maganlal Bikhabhai is per-se erroneous and contrary to the spirit of the Scheme of 1980. He relied on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. Vs. Workmen - AIR 1961 S. C 647 and submitted that the Court should adopt a purposeful interpretation so as to extend the benefit of the 1980 Scheme to a dependent like the appellant. Learned Counsel further submitted that claim of a divorcee daughter stands on the same footing as that of the unmarried dauthter and therefore, decision of the Government of India to reject the appellants claim for pension should be annuled. ( 7 ) MS. Sejal Mandavia, learned Counsel for the Government of India referred to paragraph 2 of affidavit dated 6. 6. 2002 of Shri V. P. Kaushik, Section Officer in the Ministry of Home Affairs and argued that the appellant who was married during the life time of late Shri Maganlal Bikhabhai cannot be treated as a dependent simply because her marriage was dissolved. She further argued that the appellant has not challenged the Scheme of 1980 and therefore, she cannot seek a mandamus for grant of pension in violation of the provisions contained therein. She referred to the judgement of the Supreme Court in State of H. P. and anr. Vs. Jaflidevi (Smt) (1997) 5 SCC 301 , M. P. Oil Extraction and anr. Vs. State of M. P and ors.- (1997) 7 SCC 592 , Federation of Railway Officers Association Vs. Union of India (2003) 4 SCC 289 , Mardia Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Union of India (2004) 4 SCC 311 , State of U. P. and anr. Vs. Johri Mal (2004) 4 SCC 714 and argued that the Court cannot issue a direction in violation of the policy decision taken by the Government for grant of pension to a limited category of dependence of the deceased freedom fighters. ( 8 ) WE have given serious thoughts to the respective arguments. Vs. Johri Mal (2004) 4 SCC 714 and argued that the Court cannot issue a direction in violation of the policy decision taken by the Government for grant of pension to a limited category of dependence of the deceased freedom fighters. ( 8 ) WE have given serious thoughts to the respective arguments. Admittedly, the Scheme of 1980 framed by the Government of India contemplates grant of pension to the freedom fighter and his family, which includes widow/widower, if she/he is remarried, unmarried/unemployed daughters, mother and father, but does not include divorcee daughter. Therefore, the decision taken by the Government of India not to entertain the appellants claim cannot be dubbed as illegal or violative of the legal or fundamental rights of the appellant. The learned Single Judge interpreted the Scheme of 1980 and concluded that in the absence of any provision for grant of pension to the divorcee daughter of the freedom fighter, the appellants prayer for grant of pension cannot be entertained. ( 9 ) WE entirely agree with the learned Single Judge and hold that the appellant is not entitled to pension because she does not fall in the category of the dependents of late Shri Maganlal Bikhabhai. The submission of Shri Ramnandan Singh that the divorcee daughter should be treated at par with unmarried daughter sounds attractice, but lacks merit and cannot be accepted because that would tantamount to rewriting of the scheme framed by the Government of India for grant of pension to the freedom fighters and it is settled law that while exercising the power of judicial review the Court cannot amend, alter or modify any legislative instrument or policy decision taken by the Government. There are two other reasons for our disinclination to entertain the appellants claim:- (I) A reading of the divorce deed which was placed on the record of the Special Civil Application at Annexure "e" shows that it was typed on 25. 9. 1995, but was presented before the Executive Magistrate on 20. 4. 1998 and was registered on 7. 2. 2000. This deed is shown to have been recorded on the basis of mutual agreement arrived at between the parties, but the same was not presented in any Court and no application was filed before the competent Court for grant of divorce under Section 13 (B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 4. 1998 and was registered on 7. 2. 2000. This deed is shown to have been recorded on the basis of mutual agreement arrived at between the parties, but the same was not presented in any Court and no application was filed before the competent Court for grant of divorce under Section 13 (B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The registration of deed was made after almost one year of the demise of late Shri Maganlal Bikhabhai. This gives rise to a strong suspicion about the bonafide character of the appellants claim to be treated as a dependent of late Shri Maganlal Bikhabhai; (II) The appellant did not produce any evidence before the learned Single Judge to establish that she was a dependent of late Shri Maganlal Bikhabhai. Therefore it is not possible to entertain her claim for grant of pension under the 1980 Scheme by being treated as a member of the family of the deceased freedom fighter. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. .