AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per: Justice B. P. Sharma
The present First Appeal has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff being aggrieved by the order dated 25.03.2026 passed by First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Jabalpur in RCSA No. 173/2025, whereby the petition of the appellant for declaration of marital status has been dismissed being not maintainable in absence of any direction/order by the Hon’ble High Court.
The appellant instituted a civil suit seeking declaration that she is the legally wedded wife of Late Roshan Singh Nepali and also sought consequential reliefs relating to pensionary and matrimonial benefits. According to the appellant, her marriage with Late Roshan Singh Nepali was solemnized according to Hindu rites and customs and during his lifetime she was recognized as his wife by the service authorities. The dispute arose after respondent No.1 claimed herself to be the wife of Late Roshan Singh Nepali on the basis of proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and thereafter claimed pensionary benefits. Consequently, the appellant filed Civil Suit No.166-A/2017 seeking declaration regarding her matrimonial status and related reliefs.
The learned 12th Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jabalpur entertained the suit and decided the same vide judgment dated 31.10.2023. Against the said judgment, the appellant preferred RCA No.364A/2023 before the learned 5th District Judge, Jabalpur. The Appellate Court, while deciding the appeal, observed that the subject matter involved in the suit pertained to declaration regarding validity of marriage and matrimonial status and therefore the jurisdiction to entertain such proceedings vested with the Family Court under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. However, despite recording such finding, the Appellate Court again proceeded to decide the appeal on merits and affirmed the judgment passed by the Trial Court.
It further appears from the record that when the appellant approached the Family Court, Jabalpur, the matter was not entertained by the Family Court despite the nature of dispute being one squarely covered under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act. Hence, the present appeal has been filed.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that both the Courts below committed a jurisdictional error in entertaining and deciding the suit on merits. It was contended that the relief sought by the appellant directly relates to declaration regarding validity of marriage and matrimonial status and therefore, in view of Section 7(1) Explanation (b) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the Family Court alone had jurisdiction to entertain such dispute. It was further argued that once the learned Appellate Court itself recorded a finding that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction, it could not have proceeded to affirm the judgment on merits.
Learned counsel further submitted that the Family Court also committed error in refusing to entertain the proceedings despite having exclusive jurisdiction under the statute. It was argued that the entire approach adopted by the Courts below defeats the object and scheme of the Family Courts Act which specifically excludes the jurisdiction of ordinary Civil Courts in matrimonial disputes.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
The principal issue involved in the present appeal is regarding jurisdiction of the Civil Court in a dispute relating to declaration of matrimonial status. Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 confers exclusive jurisdiction upon the Family Court in respect of disputes mentioned in the Explanation appended thereto. Explanation (b) specifically provides that a suit or proceeding for declaration regarding validity of marriage or matrimonial status of any person shall be triable by the Family Court. Relevant portion of Section 7 of The Family Courts Act, 1984 is reproduced herein below:
“7.Jurisdiction.—(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a Family Court shall—
(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 under such law, to be a district court or, as the case may be, such subordinate civil court for the area 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 following nature, namely:— (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) or restitution of conjugal rights or judicial separation or dissolution of marriage;
(b)a suit or proceeding for a declaration as to the validity of a marriage or as to the matrimonial status of any person; …
A plain reading of the plaint filed by the appellant clearly demonstrates that the entire dispute pertains to declaration regarding marital status of the parties and consequential matrimonial rights. Thus, the matter squarely falls within the jurisdiction of the Family Court under Section 7(1) Explanation (b) of the Act. Section 8 of the Act further excludes the jurisdiction of ordinary Civil Courts in such matters after establishment of the Family Court.
This Court finds that the learned 5th District Judge, Jabalpur rightly observed in RCA No.364A/2023 that the learned 12th Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jabalpur had no jurisdiction to entertain Civil Suit No.166-A/2017. However, after recording such categorical finding, the Appellate Court committed an error in proceeding to decide the appeal on merits. Once absence of jurisdiction was noticed, the only proper course available before the Appellate Court was to set aside the judgment of the Trial Court and direct adjudication by the competent Family Court.
This Court further finds that the Family Court, Jabalpur also committed error in refusing to entertain the proceedings despite the fact that the dispute clearly fell within its exclusive jurisdiction under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act. The statutory scheme of the Act leaves no ambiguity that disputes relating to matrimonial status are required to be adjudicated by the Family Court alone.
Therefore, the judgments passed by the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court cannot be sustained in the eyes of law as the same have been passed by a forum lacking jurisdiction. The judgment and decree dated 31.10.2023 passed by the learned 12th Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No.166-A/2017 are hereby set aside. The judgment dated 15.10.2025 passed by the learned 5th District Judge, Jabalpur in RCA No.364A/2023 is also hereby set aside.
It is held that the dispute raised by the appellant pertains to declaration regarding validity of marriage and matrimonial status and therefore the Family Court, Jabalpur has exclusive jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the matter under Section 7(1) Explanation (b) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. The order passed by the Family Court refusing to entertain the matter is also set aside.
The appellant is directed to appear before the Family Court, Jabalpur within 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. The Family Court shall proceed with the matter afresh in accordance with law and decide the same independently without being influenced by the observations made in the judgments which have been set aside by this Court.
Accordingly, the present First Appeal is allowed.