1. This Revision Petition is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 15.07.2017 made by the Family Court at Belagavi, whereby the application filed by the Petitioner/Defendant under Order VII Rule 11(d) of C.P.C-1908 seeking dismissal of the suit is rejected.

2. The brief facts of the case are,

(a) The Respondent has filed a Civil Suit in O.S.No.58 of 2016 seeking a decree for declaration and mandatory injunction. Paragraph No.10 of the Plaint reads as under:

“[10] It is most humbly prayed that setting aside the contentions of the defendants if any, a decree in the following terms may kindly be passed.

(a) Declaring that Smt. Raziyabegum W/o. Adamsaheb Mulla is the nominee of Shri. Adamsab S/o. Babalal Mulla in his Govt. service records.

(b) Mandatory injunction be granted with the direction to the defendant No.1 to 7 jointly and severally to enter the name of Smt. Raziyabegum W/o. Adamsaheb Mulla in the service record of defendant No.1.

(c) Any other relief this Hon’ble court deemed fit.

(d) Permission to amend the plaint if necessary.”

3. After service of summons the Defendant appeared before the Court and filed his Written Statement resisting the suit claim inter alia contending that, the prayer in terms of Paragraph No.10 of the Plaint above is legally not maintainable. Respondent/Plaintiff regardless of her marital status does not have a litigable interest and in any circumstances there is no choate cause of action on which suit can be founded, etc., although the contentions are so much articulated or pointed.

4. The Petitioner/Defendant also filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of C.P.C.-1908 seeking rejection of the Plaint/dismissal of the suit on the same grounds. The Respondent/Plaintiff filed her objections to this, specifically contending that wife’s right to nomination in the husband’s Service Register maintained by the Government is not dependant upon the whims and fancy of the Government servant inasmuch as there are various service rules put into the place.

5. The Court below considered the rival contentions of the parties as to the maintainability of the suit and made the Judgment and Order dated 15.07.2017 rejecting the Revision Petitioner’s application for dismissal of the suit. The same is in challenge before this Court.

6. The learned counsel for the Petitioner firstly contends that, it is exclusively the right of Government servant concerned to decide, whether he should nominate any member of his family as a nominee in the Service Register, either for the purpose of receipt of Death Cum Retirement Gratuity (for short ‘DCRG’) or for other terminal benefits or for compassionate appointment as the case may be. He further submits that, in any event there is no justiciable right vested in the spouse to compel the husband to make her the nominee for the service benefits.

7. Per Contra, the learned counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff submits that, the matter of nomination is longer left to the sweat will of the civil servant of the Government, inasmuch as it is also a condition of service regulated by the provisions of Rule-302 of the Karnataka Civil Serves Rules, (for short ‘KCSR’) in relation to DCRG and Rule-7 of the Karnataka Government Servants (Family Pension) Rules, 1964. He submits that, these rules having been promulgated under Article 309 of the Constitution of India or the Karnataka Civil Services Act, 1978 have statutory force and there violation gives the spouse of a civil servant a justiciable right to litigate. These Rules, according to the counsel impose an obligation on the person employed in the Government to nominate his or her spouse in the Service Register.

8. I have carefully considered the rival contentions of the parties. Rule-7 of the KGS (Family Pension) Rules, 1964 defines “Family” for the purpose of grant of Family Pension. The definition of Rule-7 of the said Act, reads as under:

“7. In these rules unless the context otherwise (sic) ‘Family’ means the following relatives of