R.SHEELA Vs. MARAGATHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unnsuccessful defendants 1 and 2 have preferred this Civil Revision Petition. One Maragatham, R.Anju, R.Akash and R.Arjun have filed the Suit in O.S.No.6025 of 2024 on the file of the XXIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, seeking for Declaration declaring that the 1 st plaintiff / Maragatham is the legally wedded wife of late P.Rajasekaran and that the 1 st plaintiff and the plaintiffs 2 to 4, who are the children born to the 1 st plaintiff, as the legal heirs of late P.Rajasekaran and consequently, directing the 1 st defendant / R.Sheela to receive the terminal benefits of late P.Rajasekaran from the defendants 3 and 4. Meanwhile, the defendants 1 and 2 have filed application in I.A.No.3/2024 in O.S.No.6025 of 2024 under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC to reject the plaint on the ground that the Suit for declaration and consequential relief in respect of matrimonial dispute as per proviso under Sec. 8 of the Family Court Act, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is ousted. The plaintiffs filed their objections to the said application. Upon hearing the arguments advanced on either side, the Court below, vide order dtd. 28/7/2025 has dismissed the application on the ground that the dispute between the parties can be resolved on the basis of evidence to be tendered by the parties and the Court below having a concurrent jurisdiction can entertain the Suit and it is not barred under Sec. 8 of the Family Courts Act. Aggrieved over the same, the defendants 1 and 2 have filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment in Balram Yadav v. Fulmaniya Yadav [2016 Supreme (SC) 320] held that Declaration as to the validity of both marriage and matrimonial status of a person is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court, vide Sec. 8 of the Family Courts Act. The Court below failed to take note that there is a statutory bar under Sec. 8 of the Family Courts Act and thereby dismissal of the application filed for rejection of the plaint is not proper. The Court below failed to note that the relief sought for by the plaintiff pertains to declaration, declaring that 1 st plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of late P.Rajasekaran and the same has to be decided only by the Family Court and not by the Civil Court. The Family Court enacted by the Parliament has over-riding effect in respect of Civil Court and thereby dismissal of the application by the Trial Court is not proper. The learned counsel for the petitioners, to strengthen his contentions, has relied upon the judgment in Balram Yadav case (supra) and would submit that the aforesaid judgment has been consistently followed by most of the High Courts. The High Court of Orissa in the decision in Kshirbati @ Kharabati Naik v. Premsila Naik & Anr. [RSA No.122 of 2024 dtd. 4/3/2025] has followed the judgment in Balram Yadav case (supra) wherein it was held that the proceeding for declaration as to the validity of both marriage and status of a person is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court. In yet another judgment, the High Court of Karnataka in Arjun v. Sushilabai and others [Misc. First Appeal No.202179 of 2023 (FC) dtd. 27/1/2025] has followed the judgment in Balram Yadav case (supra). The learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contentions, has also relied on the following judgments

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the Suit is not filed for dissolution of marriage and the Suit is filed only for declaration of legal status under Sec. 34 of the Specific Relief Act. The Suit, is not, in substance, a petition for dissolution of marriage under either the Special Marriage Act, 1954 or the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Suit is filed seeking for declaration of a legal character. The remedies provided and the Scheme of the Hindu Marriage Act and of the Special Marriage Act show that the statute creates special rights or liabilities and provides for determination of rights relating to marriage. The Acts do not lay down that all questions relating to the rights and liabilities shall be determined only by the Tribunals which are constituted under the said Act. Sec. 8(a) of the Family Courts Act excludes the Civil Court's jurisdiction in respect of a suit or proceeding which is between the parties and filed under the Hindu Marriage Act or Special Marriage Act, where the suit is to annul or dissolve a marriage, or is for restitution of conjugal rights or judicial separation and it does not create any bar or oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, if a Suit is filed for a declaration as to the legal character of a marriage. The suit not being covered under the provisions of Sec. 7, it cannot be said to be barred under Sec. 8 for the Civil Courts to exercise their jurisdiction. The suit or proceeding referred to in Sec. 7(1) of the Family Courts Act must be between the husband and wife and when the suit is not between the husband and wife, then the Family Court will not have any exclusive jurisdiction. To strengthen her contention, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the following judgments