{"id":338811,"date":"2025-01-10T15:00:50","date_gmt":"2025-01-10T09:30:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=338811"},"modified":"2025-01-15T11:14:28","modified_gmt":"2025-01-15T05:44:28","slug":"delhi-hc-sets-aside-order-dismissing-application-order-7-rule-11-no-requirement-under-law-government-employees-declare-all-family-members-legal-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/10\/delhi-hc-sets-aside-order-dismissing-application-order-7-rule-11-no-requirement-under-law-government-employees-declare-all-family-members-legal-news\/","title":{"rendered":"\u201cThere is no requirement under law for government employees to declare all family members\u201d; Delhi HC sets aside order dismissing application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Delhi High Court:<\/span> In a revision petition filed under Section 115<\/a> of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908<\/a> (‘CPC’) to set aside the Order dated 27-09-2021 by which an application under Order 7 Rule 11<\/a>, CPC<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n

Background<\/h3>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Thereafter, an application under Order 7 Rule 11<\/a> of the CPC<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n

Aggrieved, the wife filed the present revision petition against the impugned order.<\/p>\n

Analysis and Decision<\/h3>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

[Kumkum Dania v. Kul Bhushan Dania, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 9136<\/a>, Decided on 24-12-2024<\/span>]<\/p>\n

Judgment authored by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n

For Petitioner —<\/span> Advocate N.K. Kantavala, Advocate Amaya M Nair<\/p>\n

For Respondents —<\/span> Advocate Naushad Ahmed Khan, Advocate Supriya Malik, Advocate Sumit Kumar Khatri, Advocate Parv Passi<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“Even if the name of family members are not mentioned in the service book, even then they can apply for family pension to which they would be entitled, if they are qualified as per the Pension Rules.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67517,"featured_media":314886,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[27414,8651,2543,32953,2898,31557,62457,58809,7181],"class_list":["post-338811","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-cpc","tag-declaration","tag-Delhi_High_Court","tag-family-members","tag-Family_Pension","tag-government-employee","tag-order-7-rule-11","tag-set-aside","tag-trial-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDelhi HC sets aside order by Trial Court dismissing application under Order 7 Rule 11 | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Delhi HC sets aside order dismissing application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC and says there is no requirement under law for government employees to declare all family members\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/10\/delhi-hc-sets-aside-order-dismissing-application-order-7-rule-11-no-requirement-under-law-government-employees-declare-all-family-members-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"\u201cThere is no requirement under law for government employees to declare all family members\u201d; Delhi HC sets aside order dismissing application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Delhi HC sets aside order dismissing application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC and says there is no requirement under law for government employees to declare all family members\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/10\/delhi-hc-sets-aside-order-dismissing-application-order-7-rule-11-no-requirement-under-law-government-employees-declare-all-family-members-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-01-10T09:30:50+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-01-15T05:44:28+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"591\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"\u201cThere is no requirement under law for government employees to declare all family members\u201d; Delhi HC sets aside order dismissing application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/10\/delhi-hc-sets-aside-order-dismissing-application-order-7-rule-11-no-requirement-under-law-government-employees-declare-all-family-members-legal-news\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/10\/delhi-hc-sets-aside-order-dismissing-application-order-7-rule-11-no-requirement-under-law-government-employees-declare-all-family-members-legal-news\/\",\"name\":\"Delhi HC sets aside order by Trial Court dismissing application under Order 7 Rule 11 | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/10\/delhi-hc-sets-aside-order-dismissing-application-order-7-rule-11-no-requirement-under-law-government-employees-declare-all-family-members-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/10\/delhi-hc-sets-aside-order-dismissing-application-order-7-rule-11-no-requirement-under-law-government-employees-declare-all-family-members-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-01-10T09:30:50+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-01-15T05:44:28+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84913f82186a8dea042dc300d5751624\"},\"description\":\"Delhi HC sets aside order dismissing application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC and says there is no requirement under law for government employees to declare all family members\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/10\/delhi-hc-sets-aside-order-dismissing-application-order-7-rule-11-no-requirement-under-law-government-employees-declare-all-family-members-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/10\/delhi-hc-sets-aside-order-dismissing-application-order-7-rule-11-no-requirement-under-law-government-employees-declare-all-family-members-legal-news\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/10\/delhi-hc-sets-aside-order-dismissing-application-order-7-rule-11-no-requirement-under-law-government-employees-declare-all-family-members-legal-news\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp\",\"width\":887,\"height\":591,\"caption\":\"Delhi High Court\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/10\/delhi-hc-sets-aside-order-dismissing-application-order-7-rule-11-no-requirement-under-law-government-employees-declare-all-family-members-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"\u201cThere is no requirement under law for government employees to declare all family members\u201d; Delhi HC sets aside order dismissing application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84913f82186a8dea042dc300d5751624\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d822f35f9fcd11386aa47345cde7945e45a64da7205eebe9784f21d0cd223603?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d822f35f9fcd11386aa47345cde7945e45a64da7205eebe9784f21d0cd223603?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-online-editor\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Delhi HC sets aside order by Trial Court dismissing application under Order 7 Rule 11 | SCC Times","description":"Delhi HC sets aside order dismissing application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC and says there is no requirement under law for government employees to declare all family members","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/10\/delhi-hc-sets-aside-order-dismissing-application-order-7-rule-11-no-requirement-under-law-government-employees-declare-all-family-members-legal-news\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"\u201cThere is no requirement under law for government employees to declare all family members\u201d; Delhi HC sets aside order dismissing application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC","og_description":"Delhi HC sets aside order dismissing application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC and says there is no requirement under law for government employees to declare all family members","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/10\/delhi-hc-sets-aside-order-dismissing-application-order-7-rule-11-no-requirement-under-law-government-employees-declare-all-family-members-legal-news\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-01-10T09:30:50+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-01-15T05:44:28+00:00","og_image":[{"width":887,"height":591,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"\u201cThere is no requirement under law for government employees to declare all family members\u201d; Delhi HC sets aside order dismissing application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/10\/delhi-hc-sets-aside-order-dismissing-application-order-7-rule-11-no-requirement-under-law-government-employees-declare-all-family-members-legal-news\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/10\/delhi-hc-sets-aside-order-dismissing-application-order-7-rule-11-no-requirement-under-law-government-employees-declare-all-family-members-legal-news\/","name":"Delhi HC sets aside order by Trial Court dismissing application under Order 7 Rule 11 | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/10\/delhi-hc-sets-aside-order-dismissing-application-order-7-rule-11-no-requirement-under-law-government-employees-declare-all-family-members-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/10\/delhi-hc-sets-aside-order-dismissing-application-order-7-rule-11-no-requirement-under-law-government-employees-declare-all-family-members-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp","datePublished":"2025-01-10T09:30:50+00:00","dateModified":"2025-01-15T05:44:28+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84913f82186a8dea042dc300d5751624"},"description":"Delhi HC sets aside order dismissing application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC and says there is no requirement under law for government employees to declare all family members","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/10\/delhi-hc-sets-aside-order-dismissing-application-order-7-rule-11-no-requirement-under-law-government-employees-declare-all-family-members-legal-news\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/10\/delhi-hc-sets-aside-order-dismissing-application-order-7-rule-11-no-requirement-under-law-government-employees-declare-all-family-members-legal-news\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/10\/delhi-hc-sets-aside-order-dismissing-application-order-7-rule-11-no-requirement-under-law-government-employees-declare-all-family-members-legal-news\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp","width":887,"height":591,"caption":"Delhi High Court"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/10\/delhi-hc-sets-aside-order-dismissing-application-order-7-rule-11-no-requirement-under-law-government-employees-declare-all-family-members-legal-news\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"\u201cThere is no requirement under law for government employees to declare all family members\u201d; Delhi HC sets aside order dismissing application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84913f82186a8dea042dc300d5751624","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d822f35f9fcd11386aa47345cde7945e45a64da7205eebe9784f21d0cd223603?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d822f35f9fcd11386aa47345cde7945e45a64da7205eebe9784f21d0cd223603?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-online-editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":211647,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/03\/08\/del-hc-wifes-application-for-setting-aside-ex-parte-divorce-decree-rejected-in-absence-of-application-for-condonation-of-more-than-4-years-delay\/","url_meta":{"origin":338811,"position":0},"title":"Del HC | Wife’s application for setting aside ex-parte divorce decree rejected in absence of application for condonation of more than 4 years’ delay","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"March 8, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court:\u00a0A Bench of G.S. Sistani and Jyoti Singh, JJ., dismissed an appeal filed by the appellant-wife against the order of the family court rejecting her application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte decree of divorce passed in favour of her husband. The parties\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":209759,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/02\/11\/del-hc-ex-parte-divorce-decree-set-aside-on-wifes-assurance-of-not-to-delay-the-trial\/","url_meta":{"origin":338811,"position":1},"title":"Del HC | Ex-parte divorce decree set aside on wife’s assurance of not to delay the trial","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"February 11, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court:\u00a0Division Bench of Jyoti Singh and G.S. Sistani, JJ. allowed an appeal filed against the order of Family Court whereby an ex-parte divorce\u00a0decree was passed against the wife. The parties were married to each other. However, subsequently some differences arose and the husband filed for divorce under Section\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":299744,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/21\/delhi-hc-directs-family-court-judges-to-judiciously-use-legal-provisions-expeditious-disposal-petitions\/","url_meta":{"origin":338811,"position":2},"title":"Delhi High Court directs Family Court Judges to judiciously use the legal provisions for expeditious disposal of petitions","author":"Editor","date":"August 21, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cScrupulous adherence to Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 can curtail litigation like the present one, which aside from clogging the litigation also keeps the parties embroiled in litigation with a false hope of some relief.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"delhi high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":219178,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/06\/del-hc-wifes-application-seeking-setting-aside-of-ex-parte-decree-of-judicial-separation-dismissed-on-treating-refusal-to-receive-summons-as-due-service\/","url_meta":{"origin":338811,"position":3},"title":"Del HC | Wife’s application seeking setting aside of ex-parte decree of Judicial Separation dismissed on treating refusal to receive summons as due service","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"September 6, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court:\u00a0A Division Bench of Hima Kohli and Asha Menon, JJ. dismissed an appeal filed by the appellant-wife against the order of the Family Court whereby her application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC for setting aside of the ex-parte decree of judicial Separation passed\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":260380,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/01\/20\/power-under-or-18-r-17-cpc-cannot-be-invoked-to-fill-up-omission-in-the-evidence-already-led-by-a-witness\/","url_meta":{"origin":338811,"position":4},"title":"HP HC | Power under Or. 18 R. 17 CPC cannot be invoked to fill up omission in the evidence already led by a witness","author":"Editor","date":"January 20, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Himachal Pradesh High Court: Sandeep Sharma, J., allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order dated 17-07-2017. \u00a0The facts of the case are such that husband filed divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, against the wife on the ground of cruelty. During the pendency of aforesaid\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":201306,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/04\/order-18-rule-17-cpc-not-intended-for-parties-to-recall-witness-for-re-examination-it-enables-court-to-recall-witness-to-clarify-issues\/","url_meta":{"origin":338811,"position":5},"title":"Order 18 Rule 17 CPC not intended for parties to recall witness for re-examination; it enables Court to recall witness to clarify issues \u00a0","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"September 4, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: A Division Bench comprising of G.S. Sistani and C. Hari Shankar, JJ. dismissed an appeal filed by the appellant-husband against the order of the family court whereby it granted a decree of divorce in favour of the respondent-wife. It was contended by appellant that he wasn\u2019t given\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/338811","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67517"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=338811"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/338811\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/314886"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=338811"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=338811"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=338811"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}