Delhi High Court: In a revision petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) to set aside the Order dated 27-09-2021 by which an application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC had been dismissed, a Single Judge Bench of Neena Bansal Krishna, J. held that the plaint of the respondent (husband) (plaintiff) did not disclose any cause of action and set aside the impugned order.
Background
The husband filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against the petitioner to direct the revisionist (wife) (defendant 1) for processing the due rights of family pension in his favour as per the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1944 (‘Rules’) and to direct the Deputy Director and Director of the Department of Education (defendants 2 and 3) for grant of family pension to the respondent, as per the complaints made regarding concealment of family members in the service record by the wife.
The wife was a music teacher in a school under the administrative control of the Directorate of Education and she superannuated from her post on 31-01-2018 after which she had taken re-employment in the same school.
Both parties got married in 1990 and two children were born from this wedlock. According to the wife, there were matrimonial disputes from the beginning of their marriage, which eventually led to their separation in 2008. In order to harass the wife, the husband filed a guardianship petition to seek the custody of the children whereby he lost and got only visitation rights. However, considering the best interest of the children, the wife shifted back with the husband, but their relationship continued to be as acrimonious as in the past.
The husband stated that the wife had intentionally concealed the correct facts in her service record and declared her status as unmarried. He made various complaints to various authorities that the wife had concealed his as well as their children’s names, thereby depriving them from family pension.
The wife clarified in her written statement that she had joined employment prior to her marriage and that as soon as she came to know about this fact, she had corrected the service record on the employee portal. The wife contended that the husband not only made various complaints but also created difficulty in her getting the pension account.
Thereafter, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC was filed by the wife wherein it was asserted that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action and therefore the suit was liable to be rejected. The Trial Court rejected the application vide order dated 27-09-2021 by observing that the wife had not furnished the correct details about the marriage and the children born from the wedlock at the time of retirement.
Aggrieved, the wife filed the present revision petition against the impugned order.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that all claims of the husband were in regard to the family pension and had sought processing of the family pension of the wife and that an enquiry be initiated against her for concealment of obligations towards the husband.
The Court stated that as per the Rules, the family pension would be payable to the members of the family of the deceased pensioner and on satisfying the requisite qualifications on an application filed by such person, the pension is disbursable to such entitled persons. The Court stated that this right is not circumscribed by the declaration of the family members in the service book.
Further, the Court said that there was no requirement under the law for a government employee to declare all family members and that even if the names of the family members are not mentioned in the service book, they could still apply for family pension and they would be entitled to the same, if they are qualified as per the Rules.
The Court said that in the present matter, the wife was still alive and the cause of action for claiming family pension had not arisen. Moreover, it was said that there was no impediment to the husband to seek pension if he was qualified when the cause of action would arise.
The Court stated that this was a case where the husband had chosen not only to harass the wife by making innumerable complaints which created hurdles for her in receiving the pension but had also chosen to not let her live in peace by filing a suit on some specious grounds which did not disclose any cause of action.
Thus, the Court set aside the impugned order, rejected the suit, and allowed the present petition by concluding that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action.
[Kumkum Dania v. Kul Bhushan Dania, C.R.P. 3 of 2022, Decided on 24-12-2024]
Judgment authored by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner — Advocate N.K. Kantavala, Advocate Amaya M Nair
For Respondents — Advocate Naushad Ahmed Khan, Advocate Supriya Malik, Advocate Sumit Kumar Khatri, Advocate Parv Passi