[2025:RJ-JP:36221-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1047/2025 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4978/2023 Sunil Kumar S/o Shri Krishan Kumar, Aged About 47 Years, R/o 95-A, Krishna Nagar, Boring Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur-302012 (Raj.). ----Appellant/Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through Secretary To Govt. Social Justice And Empowerment Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Director Social Justice And Empowerment Department, Ambedkar Bhawan, Rajmahal, G-3/1, Parivahan Marg, Residency Area, Jaipur. 3. The Director, Pension And Pensioners Welfare Department, Jyoti Nagar, Lalkothi, Jaipur (Raj.). ----Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Prahlad Sharma with Mr. Lakhan Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT Order 09/09/2025 1. Admittedly, on the date of death of Smt. Hasina, a divorce decree had been passed against the appellant, which was existing. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has pointed out that an application has been filed after filing of the writ petition in the year 2023 under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, which has been allowed by the Family Court No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan-I vide order dated 06.01.2025 and the same remained uncontested, as the wife in whose favour the divorce has been granted on 04.08.2018, expired on 30.03.2020. [2025:RJ-JP:36221-DB] (2 of 2) [SAW-1047/2025] 3. While we have our own reservations relating to the order dated 06.01.2025 whereby the decree of divorce was set aside after the death of wife. 4. We find that so far as the claim of the appellant seeking family pension is concerned, the same was not payable on the day when his so-called wife expired. 5. We also noticed that after death of Smt. Hasina, her son was given compassionate appointment and family pension was also released in favour of her another son. In such circumstances, claim of the appellant-petitioner who is ex-husband as on the day when she expired, does not survive. 6. The present Special Appeal (Writ) is, accordingly, dismissed. 7. We also noticed that the appellant-petitioner had fraudulently obtained an order from the Government for receiving family pension and gratuity in spite of the fact that as on the day when he claimed pension, the divorce decree was in force and he could not have claimed himself to be the husband of deceased-government servant. The action taken by the State Government was, therefore, in accordance with law. The divorce decree has been set aside only in the year 2025. 8. We find that there is a gross abuse of the process of Court by the appellant. Cost of Rs. 1 lakh is imposed upon appellant to be deposited with the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jaipur, and to be recovered, if not paid, from the arrears of land revenue. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J Amit/Ritu/29