BALRAM YADAV . versus FULMANIYA YADAV on 27 April 2016

[2016] 2 S.C.R. 965

.~

BALRAM YADAV .

v.

FULMANIYA YADAV (Civil Appeal No. 4500 of2016) APRIL 27, 2016

[KURIAN JOSEPH AND ROHINTON FALi NARIMAN, JJ.)

Family Courts Act, 1984 - ss. 7, 8, 20 -Jurisdiction of family courts - Declaration as to matrimonial status - Held: Declaration as to validity of both marriage and matrimonial status of a person is within exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court - It does not matter whether it is an affirmative relief or negative relief Allowing the appeal, the Conrt HELD: Under Section 7(1) Explanation (b) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, a Suit or a proceeding for·a declaration as to the validity of both. marriage and.-n-imonial status of a person is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court, since under Section 8, all those jurisdictions covered under Section 7 are excluded from the purview of the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts~ In case, there is a dispute on the matrimonial status of any person, a declaration in that regard has to be sought only before the Family Court. It makes no difference as to whether it is an affirmative relief or a negative relief. The declaration regarding the matrimonial status is important. Section 20 also endorses the view taken, since the Family Courts Act, 1984, has an overriding effect on other laws. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. The matter is remitted to the High Court to!J.e. decided on merits. [Paras 8, 9) [968-E-G]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4500 of .

2016.

.. '.,,,,.

From the Judgment and Order dated 14.01.2015 of the High Court ofChhattisgarh at Bilaspur in First Appeal No. 12 of2014.

Dr. Rajesh Pandey, B. N. Patel, Nitin Bhardwaj, Advs. for the Appellant.

A

B

c

D

E

F

G

H

A Apoorva Tripathi, Ms. Manju Sharma Jetley, Advs. for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KURIAN, J. I. Leave granted.

2. The appellant instituted a Civil Suit before the Family Court, B Ambikapur, Sarguja, Chhattisgarh seeking a declaration to the effect that respondent is not his legally married wife. By judgment dated 28.12.2013, the Civil Suit was decreed declaring that the respondent was not appellant's legally married wife.

3. The respondent, being aggrieved, moved the High Court of c Chhattisgarh. The High court, as per the impugned order dated 14.01.2015, allowed the appeal holding that the Family Court lacked jurisdiction to deal with the matter. According to the High Court, a negative declaration was outside the jurisdiction of the Family Court.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

D

5. Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, I 984(for short "the Act") deals with the jurisdiction of the Family Courts, which reads as follows:- "Jurisdiction.-(1) Subjecttothe other provisions of th is Act, a Family Court shall-"

E (a) have and exercise all the jurisdiction exercisable by any district court or any subordinate civil court under any law for the time being in force in respect of suits and proceedings of the nature referred to in the explanation; and (b) be deemed, for the purposes of exercising such jurisdiction F under such law, to be a district court or, as the case may be, such subordinate civil court forthe ~rea to which the jurisdiction of the Family Court extends.

Explanation.-The suits and proceedings referred to in this sub-section are suits and proceedings of the fellowing nature, namely:- G (a) a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage for a decree of nullity of marriage (declaring the marriage to be null and void or, as the case may be, annulling the marriage) orrestitution of conjugal rights or judicial separation or dissolution of marriage; H

(b) a suit or proceeding for a declaration as to the validity of a A

(i) which is pending immediately before the establishment of such Family Court before any district court or subordinate court referred to in that sub-section or, as the case may be, pefore any magistrate under the said Code; and ..

(ii) which would have been required to be instituted or taken before or by such Family Court if, before the date on which such suit or proceeding was instituted or taken, this Act had come into force and such Family Court had been established, B

shall stand transferred to such Family Court on the date on which it is established."

c

7. Section 20 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 provides for overriding effect of the Act on other laws or instruments having the effect of law. The said Section reads as follows:- ."20.Act to Jlave overriding effect- The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith D contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act."

8. Under Section 7(1) Explanation (b), a Suit or a proceeding for a declaration as to the validity of both marriage and matrimonial status ofa person is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court, since under Section 8, all those jurisdictions covered under Section 7 are excluded from the purview of the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts. In case, there is a dispute on the matrimonial status of any person, a declaration in that regard has to be sought only before the Family Court. It makes no difference as to whether it is an affirmative relief or a negative relief. What is important is the declaration regarding the niatrimonial status. Section 20 also endorses the view which we have taken, since the Family Courts Act, 1984, has an overriding effect on other laws.

E

9. Jn view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. The matter is remitted to the High Court to be decided on merits. We request the High Court to hear the appeal afresh and dispose it of expediti~t1sly, preferably with ill a period of six months.

No costs.

NidhiJain

Appeal allowed.