1 2025:CGHC:19886-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA(MAT) No. 43 of 2025 1 - Mukhtar Singh S/o Karam Singh Aged About 59 Years R/o Sector 6, Street No. 65, Quarter No. 03d, Bhilai, Tehsil And District- Durg (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Rajindar Kaur W/o Mukhtar Singh Aged About 54 Years R/o Dhancha Bhawan, Makan No. 558, Village Kurud (Kohka Bhilai), Tehsil And District- Dur (C.G.) 2 - Managing Director Bhilai Ispat Plant, Tehsil And Distict- Durg (C.G.) 3 - In-Charge General Manager Personnel And Administrative, Room No. 204, Ispat Bhawan, Bhilai, Ispat Plant, Tehsil And District- Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. B. P. Singh, Advocate Hon’ble Smt. Rajani Dubey and Hon’ble Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, JJ Judgment on Board 01/05/2025 Per, Rajani Dubey, J. Heard on admission. 2 2. This appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (henceforth “Act of 1984”) has been filed against the order dated 26.10.2024 (Annexure A- 1) passed by learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District Durg in Civil Suit No. 418 of 2024 by which the application filed by the wife under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC was allowed and respondent Nos. 2 & 3 were directed to hold an amount of Rs. 23,40,000/- from the gratuity amount of the husband. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is bad in law and the learned trial Court has grossly erred in not appreciating the material available on record. He submits that the appellant was retired on 31.10.2024 and only his gratuity amount remained before the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 as per (Annexure A-7). He submits that the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 has illegally retained gratuity of the appellant therefore, appellant had to sent legal notice to respondent No. 3 (Annexure A-8). He further submits that the appellant is a pensioner of respondent Nos. 2 & 3 and respondent No. 2 & 3 are not paying gratuity of the appellant which is against the mandate of Section 60 of CPC. For permanent alimony respondent-wife already filed an Execution case No. 01/2016 (Smt. Rajindar Kaur Vs. Mukhtar Singh) on 01.01.2016 therefore, as per Section 10 of CPC, this order is illegal. The suit filed by the respondent No. 1 is barred by Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC and Section 11 of CPC, therefore, impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order and submits that the learned trial Court minutely appreciated all documents filed by both the parties and also appreciating orders and judgment passed by this Court and Hon’ble Apex Court, passed the impugned order. Therefore, this appeal is 3 without any merits and liable to be dismissed. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is clear from the impugned order and other documents filed by both the parties that respondent was the wife of appellant and in FAM No. 179 of 2015 this Court granted one time alimony of Rs. 15,00,000/- in favour of the respondent/wife and this Court also directed in FAM No. 179 of 2015 wherein the Hon’ble Division Bench has held in paragraph No. 11 as under: “11. We, however, are inclined to ease the appellant's liability towards payment of Rs. 15,00,000/- in favour of respondent/wife, considering that Rs. 15,00,000/- has been ordered to the appellant to be paid. The impugned judgment and decree is modified only to the extent that the amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- shall be payable by the appellant/husband to the respondent/wife in three equal installments over a period of three years. The first installment would become due for payment by the appellant by 1st August 2020, the second installment to be paid by the appellant by 1st August 2021 and the third installment to be paid by the appellant by 1st August 2022” 7. Thus, it is clear from impugned order and other documents that the appellant/husband need not to pay this amount as per this Court’s order and it is also clear from the impugned order that appellant was retired on 31.10.2024, therefore, respondent/wife filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction before learned Family Court seeking for the following relief:- "अतएव मानन य न्ययलय से ቚኋ्ቕन है कि वकिन यहै व स्व र र वकिन प्ቌ मा किन्ቓय एव किቅኍ ቚኋन र यहै घो"ष्ቓ जाव कि वकिन न्यय किन्ቓय ቛኋर गई स््ቕय भर्ቓ प"ष्ቓ रकि) 15.00.000/- रूपय माय ब्यजा 8,40,000/रू. (अ्ቌर आठ लख चाल से हैजार रू.) 0 ल 23,40,000/-रू. 4 (अ्ቌर तईसे लख चाल से हैजार रूपय) ቚኋकितव ቅኍ.01 " रिरटायरमाटा मा ቚኋ्቎ है"न वल सेप4्ቓ रकि) मा से 23,40,000/-रू. (अ्ቌर तईसे लख चाल से हैजार रूपय) ቚኋ्቎ रन अधि6रिर्ቓ है त्ቕ व्य) माध्यमा से ቚኋकितव ቅኍ. 01 एव 02 " व्य) ቛኋर किनषधि6त किय जाव कि ቚኋकितव .01 " रिरटायरमाटा मा ቚኋ्቎ है"न वल सेप4्ቓ रकि) मा से 23,40,000/-रू. (अ्ቌर तईसे लख चाल से हैजार रूपय) रूपय र" रख त्ቕ ቚኋकितव ቅኍ.01 " रूपय ቚኋन न र। त्ቕ अन्य अन0त"ष मानन य न्ययलय जा" किवधि6त: मा0नधिसेब सेमाेሟ वकिन " किलय ।" 8. The respondent also filed application Under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC and the learned Family Court after hearing both the parties passed the impugned order on 26.10.2024. The learned trial Court held in para 12 to 14 as under:- “(12) आवकि प्ቌ मा ए किनष्पन कि लकिबत है, धिजासे भ0गतन अनव मा 1 " रन है। आवकि ्ቕन है कि यकि अनव ቅኍमा 1 मा0ख्तर धिसेहै किभलई इस्पत सेय्ቔ से अव) ቚኋ्቎ र सेमास्त रकि) भ0गतन लर पलयन र जायग त" उसे य्ቕ आकि)त कि भ0गतन नहैB है" पयग। वतमान मा आवकि पसे उसे प्ቌ मा ए किनष्पन रिरत कि ቚኋ्ቈ है, धिजासेमा अनव मा 1 " 23,40,000/- रूपए रकि) भ0गतन है"न है ऐसे मा ቚኋ्ቕमा दृ्ቖय मामाल आवकि प्ቌ मा पय जात है। अत: अनव ቅኍमा 1 मा0ख्तर धिसेहै " अनव मा 2 व 3 ቛኋर उसे सेवकिनवGधि्ቈ पर किमालन वल सेप4्ቓ रकि) भ0गतन र किय जात है त" ऐसे मा आवकि प्ቌ मा किनष्पकित कि किनष्पन किठत है" जायग, ऐसे ቝኌस््ቕकित मा अप4्ቓIय ्ቌकित किबन्0 भ आवकि प्ቌ मा पय जात है। (13) आवकि ቛኋर अनव मा 2 एव 3 किवरू्ቍ किनष6ሺኋ इसे आ) से्ቕ जार किय जान किनवन किय गय है कि अनव मा 1 " उसे अव) पर किमालन वल सेप4्ቓ रकि) भ0गतन किय किय जाय, किन्त0 23,40,000/- रूपए र"र रख जाय, तकि उसे प्ቌ मा परिरत आ) किनष्पन किय जा से , ऐसे मा से0किव6 सेत0लन किबन्0 भ आवकि 5 प्ቌ मा पय जात है। (14) उपर"्ሹ किववचान आ6र आवकि प्ቌ मा ቚኋ्ቕमा दृ्ቖय मामाल अप4्ቓIय ्ቌकित एव से0किव6 सेत0लन त नM किबन्0 आवकि प्ቌ मा पय जात है अत: आवकि प्ቌ मा इसे आ)य किनष6ሺኋ जार किय जात है कि अनव मा 2 व 3, अनव मा 1 " उसे सेवकिनवGधि्ቈ कितधि्ቕ 31.10.2024 " किमालनवल रकि) मा से 23,40,000/- रूपए भ0गतन र" र रख और )ष रकि) भ0गतन उसे किनयमान0सेर किय जाय।" 9. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the conduct of appellant/husband, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned the order. The learned trial Court minutely appreciated all the documents, all orders passed by this Court and Hon’ble Apex Court and allowed the application filed by the wife Under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC. 10. In view of above, this appeal is without any merits. It deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed at motion stage. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge Pawan