Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Orissa Single Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra allowed an appeal and set aside the judgments and decrees passed by the lower courts, directing that the matter be immediately transferred to the Family Court at Phulbani. The Court found that both the trial and first appellate courts had entertained and adjudicated the matter without jurisdiction, despite the express statutory bar under the Family Courts Act, 1984. The High Court categorically stated that the trial court committed a manifest error in proceeding with the suit and that the First Appellate Court failed to exercise its authority to transfer the case appropriately. The Court further directed that the Family Court shall hear the matter afresh, uninfluenced by any prior judgments, and make every effort to dispose of the case expeditiously within eight months from the date of receipt of records.

The dispute arose following the death of Keshab Mukhi on 2nd January 2017. The plaintiff filed a suit claiming that she was the only legally wedded wife of the deceased and sought a negative declaration that the defendant No.1 was not his legally wedded wife. Further, the plaintiff prayed for a direction to defendant No.3 to disburse all pensionary benefits in her favor. According to the plaintiff, she discovered that defendant No.1 had obtained a legal heir certificate claiming to be the wife of the deceased, which was subsequently cancelled by the Tahasildar, Phiringia on 25th July 2017 in M.C. No.22/2017, thereby directing defendant No.1 to surrender the legal heir certificate.

Also Read: Supreme Court Acquits All Accused In Murder Case | Holds High Court Proceeded On Presumptions And Assumptions Based On The Story Scripted By The Prosecution Without Any Legal Evidence

The defendants filed a joint written statement denying the plaintiff’s claims, asserting that no valid marriage had ever taken place between the plaintiff and the deceased. They also denied the plaintiff’s assertion of having received maintenance, and contended that Keshab Mukhi lived happily with them, which the plaintiff was well aware of.

The trial court framed four issues and, after evaluating the oral and documentary evidence under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, dismissed the suit. The plaintiff then preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Kandhamal. The First Appellate Court examined the maintainability of the suit in a civil court in light of Sections 7 and 8 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. It concluded that the suit should not have been instituted in a civil court and was not maintainable. Despite this finding, the appellate court upheld the trial court’s judgment on other grounds.

The plaintiff approached the High Court in second appeal. The substantial question of law framed was whether both the lower courts were correct in entertaining the suit and the appeal arising therefrom in view of Section 7 of the Family Courts Act read with Section 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Advocate Mr. C. Samantaray, appearing for the plaintiff-appellant, argued that the Family Court at Phulbani was established prior to the filing of the suit and had exclusive jurisdiction over the matter. He submitted that the prayer in the suit squarely fell within the jurisdiction of the Family Court as per Section 8 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

On the other hand, Advocate Mr. J.K. Khuntia, representing the defendants, contended that the dispute was of a purely civil nature concerning the status of the parties and the entitlement to pensionary benefits, which falls within the jurisdiction of civil courts. He, however, conceded that the plaintiff’s prayer did pertain to a declaration concerning her marital status and that of the defendant No.1.

The High Court noted that the Family Court for the district of Kandhamal was established on 12th August 2013, much before the filing of the suit in 2018. The Court cited the notification dated 10th October 2012 issued by the Government of Odisha and the subsequent communication from the High Court of Orissa confirming the operational date of the Family Court.

Justice Sashikanta Mishra observed that “the suit being one for a declaration as to the validity of marriage between the plaintiff and Keshab Mukhi as also for negative declaration regarding the marital status of defendant No.1 vis-à-vis Keshab Mukhi, the dispute squarely falls within the purview of Clause-(b)” of Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

The Court further recorded that “the other relief claimed, that is, for direction for disbursal of pensionary benefits, is obviously consequential being entirely dependent upon the main relief claimed.” Accordingly, the High Court held that the matter should have been dealt with exclusively by the Family Court after its establishment and functioning.

Referring to Section 8 of the Family Courts Act, the Court stated that “Clause-(a) of the provision clearly bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in respect of any matter in any suit or proceeding of the nature referred to in the explanation to that sub-section.” The Court also stated that “in view of Clause (a) of Section 8, the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division at Phulbani lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter any further.”

Justice Mishra relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Balaram Yadav v. Fulmaniya Yadav (2016 (II) OLR (SC) 125) and observed that “a proceeding for a declaration as to the validity of both marriage and matrimonial status of a person is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court.” The Court further recorded that “it makes no difference as to whether the relief claimed is affirmative or negative. What is important is the declaration regarding the matrimonial status.”

The Court expressed surprise that “even after establishment and functioning of the Family Court, the trial Court not only proceeded with the suit but also decided it finally.” It further observed that “the First Appellate Court, having held that the suit was not maintainable, should have set aside the decree of the trial court and directed it to transfer the suit to the Family Court for adjudication.”

The Court concluded that “the question of jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter and the judgment passed by a Court lacking jurisdiction is obviously a nullity.” It reiterated that “the Civil Court shall have no jurisdiction to entertain a suit where the same is expressly barred under any law.”

Also Read: AP High Court Dismisses 19-Year-Old Challenge To Surcharge Notice | Holds Liquidation Does Not Bar Action Under Section 60 | Terms Petition An Abuse Of Process And Imposes Costs

The High Court allowed the appeal and passed the following directions:

“The impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below are hereby set aside. The trial Court is directed to immediately transmit the records to the Family Court at Phulbani for hearing of the matter afresh.”

The Court further directed that “in doing so, the Family Court shall not be influenced by the judgments passed by the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court in any manner.”

Finally, the High Court mandated that “the Family Court shall endeavour to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within eight months from the date of receipt of records.”

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Appellant: Mr. C. Samantaray, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate

Case Title: Sanjukta Mukhi v. Gitanjali Mukhi & Ors.

Case Number: RSA No. 482 of 2023

Bench: Justice Sashikanta Mishra

[Read/Download order]