KASHIMSAB Vs. KHAIRUNNISA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed calling in question the order dated 02.08.2017 in O.S. No.609/2015 on the file of the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi (for short, 'the Civil Court'). The Civil Court by the impugned order has rejected the petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the first respondent has initiated the suit in O.S. No.609/2015 asserting that she is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. The first respondent has filed this suit because the petitioner, who is an employee of the Railways, would be able to nominate a nominee for employment with the Railways after retiring on superannuation as per the scheme called "Liberalized Active Retirement Scheme for Guaranteed Employment for Safety Staff". The first respondent contends that the petitioner should nominate her because she is the legally wedded wife, but the petitioner is nominating another person. The lis between the parties for maintenance in other proceeding is pending consideration.

(3.) The learned counsel submits that the central question in the suit would be whether the first respondent is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and this question, given the provisions of Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, more specifically Section 7(1) explanation (b), will have to be decided only by the Family Court, Hubballi. The suit instituted before the Civil Judge would therefore be barred. Further, the learned counsel submits that the petition could be disposed of directing the return of the plaint to be presented before the Family Court, Hubballi with necessary directions.