Allahabad High Court
Trilochan Singh vs Kuljit Kaur And Two Ors. on 30 September, 1991
Equivalent citations: I(1992)DMC220
JUDGMENT N.L. Ganguly, J.
1. This revision is directed against the order dated 15.5.1990 passed by the Chief Judge, Family Court, Kanpur City, by which the family Court has passed orders under Section 94 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 151 and directed Air Marshal, Head Quarters, Air Force Building, New Delhi, not to pay the provident fund and gratuity and pension etc. payable to the applicant, Trilochan Singh who was retiring on 23.5.1990. Against the said order, the present revision has been filed. This Court was pleased to direct the applicant to serve the respondents, Respondent No. 1 is represented by Sri K.K. Tripathi.
2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant. List has been revised. Learned Counsel for the opposite parties Sri K.K. Tripathi is not present In the Court.
3. A ex-parte decree for divorce was passed by the family Court on the application of the applicant, Sardar Trilochan Singh, decreeing the dirvorce case against Smt. Kuljeet Kaur. Restoration application against the ex-parte decree was filed by Smt. Kaur which is pending and has not been restored to its original number. In the mean time, it appears that an application was moved by Smt. Kuljeet Kaur, respondent No. 1, before the Family Court for an order that the Air Marshal, Head Quarters, New Delhi, respondent No. 2 in this revision, be restrained from paying the pension, provident fund and other amount payable to the applicant after his retirement. The allegation of the opposite party No. 1 was that after the retirement, the applicant is likely to move out of the jurisdiction of the Family Court, Kanpur. Therefore, in view of circumstances, it will be very difficult for her to get any decree executed against him. In the circumstances, interim direction was issued by the Family Court at Kanpur.
4. It appears that the applicant, Trilochan Singh has retired in the meantime. A certified copy of the order passed in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was produced before the Court in Case No. 301 of 1991 : Smt. Kuljeet Kaur aud Another v. Trilochan Singh in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. The Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, has awarded Rs. 300/- as interim maintenance to the wife and Rs. 150/ to the minor son.
5. It has to be examined that whether the Family Court was justified in issuing any interim direction restraining respondent Nos. 2, 3 from paying the Provident Fund, gratuity and other retirement benefits to the applicant after retirement. Learned Counsel for the applicant placed provisions of Section 60(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The items included in Sub-section (g) of Section 60 are stipends and gratuity allowed to the pensioners by the Government or by legal authority or by any other employer or payable out of any service family pension, fund, notified in the official gazette by the Central Government or the State Government in this behalf and political pension. It is thus clear that such stipend, gratuity, pension and fund are not liable to attachment and sale in execution of a decree.
6. It is not disputed that the ex-parte decree for divorce has already been passed and the matter is pending before the Family Court on application of the opposite party No. 1 under order 9 rule 13 code of civil procedure which is pending. The apprehension of the opposite party No. 1 is that the applicant is likely to leave and go away out of the jurisdiction of the Family Court of Kanpur and in such circumstances a restrain order be passed so that she may not be deprived of the legitimate claim. The opposite party No. 1 had not obtained any judgment and order in her favour till the date of her application for the restrain order. Her only case was that the ex-parte decree for divoree which was passed by the Family Court be recalled and the case be restored to its original number. There is no dispute about the factual aspect that such an application for restoration is pending. The question for determination is whether the Family Court was justified in passing the restrain order as was passed in the present case. After hearing the learned Counsel for the applicant and perusing the record, I am of the opinion that the Family Court took a drastic step and passed the impugned order without carring to look to he provisions of Section 60(g) C.P.C, Further it is also clear that on the date when the impugned order was passed, the application for restoration was pending and there was no such proceedings pending before him in which such restrain order was called for. It appears that the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, has already passed an order for grant of an interim maintenance to the respondent No. 1 and the minor son. It would be improper to pass a restrain order by one Court and another order passed against the same order directing him to pay maintenance, allowance. Act one hand, the Family Court stopped the source of income which was to be available to the applicant for payment and the other order directs for making a payment of interim maintenance to the wife and son. After considering the circumstances, I consider that the order impugned is patently illegal and without jurisdiction, and the same is liable to be quashed. In the result, the revision is allowed. No order as to costs.