Point of Law:
Even when the allegations made in the plaint are taken to be correct as a whole on their face value, if they show that the suit is barred by any law, or do not disclose cause of action, the application for rejection of plaint can be entertained and the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be exercised. If clever drafting of the plaint has created the illusion of a cause of action, the court will nip it in the bud at the earliest so that bogus litigation will end at the earlier stage.

JUDGMENT :

Anil Kumar, J.

1. Heard Sri Ram Raj, learned counsel for the appellant.

2. Present first appeal under section 19(1) of the Family Court Act has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 11.02.2020 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court no.1 Lucknow in Regular Suit No.1274 of 2017 (Lt. Col. Rajesh Kumar Singh Vs. Mrs. Nalini Singh) whereby application filed by the appellant under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. has been rejected.

3. Facts, in brief, as submitted by learned counsel for the appellant are that marriage of appellant and respondent was solemnized according to Hindu Rites and Customs on 13..02.2005 at Nakodha Garden, Swaroop Sagar Choraya, Udaipur(Rajasthan).

4. Thereafter their matrimonial relation became estranged, so respondent/ Lt. Col. Rajesh Kumar Singh filed a Petition under Section 11 read with Section 12 read with section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, registered as Regular Suit No.1274 of 2017 (Lt. Col. Rajesh Kumar Singh Vs. Smt. Nalini Singh) in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow with the following relief:-

“A decree be kindly be passed under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,declaring the marriage of the parties dated 13.02.2005 as ab-initio null and void by a decree of nullity for the reason that the defendant had a spouse living at the time of her marriage with the plaintiff

Or in the alternative,

A decree be kindly be issued under section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955, declaring the marriage of the parties dated 13.02.2005 as null and void and annulled by a decree of nullity, for the reason that the consent of the plaintiff had been obtained by fraud and also for want of free and fair consent as aforesaid.

Or in the alternative

A decree of divorce be kindly passed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 dissolving the marriage of the parties dated 13.02.2005.

b. The cost of suit be also awarded in favour of he plaintiff against the defendant.

c. Any other relief which the Hon’ble Court deems just and proper be also granted.”

5. On 25.10.2019 appellant/defendant had filed her written statement.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that on 15.03.2019 an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C. had been filed by the appellant/ defendant, registered as Application no. C-14 to which respondent/plaintiff had filed objection on 23.03.2019.

7. By order dated 11.02.2020, Additional Principal Judge, Family Court no.1, Lucknow rejected the appellant’s application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant while challenging the impugned order submits that Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court no.1 Lucknow while passing the impugned order dated 11.02.2020 in Regular Suit No.1274 of 2017; Lt. Col. Rajesh Kumar Singh Vs. Smt. Nalini Singh has committed serious error of both law and fact in rejecting the application preferred by the appellant under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. and has passed the impugned order on conjectures and surmises.

9. On behalf of the appellant, it has also been argued that the court below has arbitrarily and illegally rejected the appellant’s application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. without considering the documentary evidence submitted by the appellant proving that the plaintiff/respondent had full and definite knowledge of appellant’s earlier marriage on 13.02.2005 itself and the plaintiff/respondent had filed online documents uploaded in his own handwriting on 20.05.2015 to the passport department.

10. So the impugned order dated 11.02.2020 passed by court below is liable to be set aside primarily on the ground that the said order is in violation of a settled principle of law that a person who does not come to the court / judicial forum with clean hands is not entitled to be heard on merits of his grievance and in any case, such person is not entitled to any relief from the Court.

11. In this regard it is further submitted t