Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 17, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Mangli Devi @ Parveen vs Smt. Parveen Devi on 24 December, 2019

   IN THE COURT OF CHARU ASIWAL : CIVIL JUDGE - 08 (CENTRAL),
             ROOM NO. 231, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI


                      SUIT NO. : 1802/17 (OLD NO. : 450/17)

In the matter of :­

Mangli Devi @ Parveen
W/o Late Sh. Chander Singh Rawat
R/o B­4, Upkar Colony,
Sant Nagar,
Burari, New Delhi­110084.                                       ... PLAINTIFF


                                    VERSUS


1. Smt. Parveen Devi
   W/o
   R/o 2391, Gali Munde Wali,
   Sadar Bazar, Delhi­110006.

2. Secretary(Pension Trust)
   DVB Employee Terminal
   Benefit Fund­2002 (Pension Trust),
   Shakti Sadan, Kotla Marg,
   New Delhi­110002.                                      ... DEFENDANTS


             Date of institution        : 17.05.2017
             Date of judgement          : 24.12.2019


        SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION

   1. By this judgment, I shall decide a suit for declaration and mandatory

Suit No. 1802/17(Old No. 450/17)                         Pg 1 of 23
       injunction.

      BRIEF FACTS OF THE PLAINT:

2. It is stand of the plaintiff that she is the widow of Late Sh. Chander Singh Rawat and that their marriage took place in the year 1973 in their native village in Uttrakhand. She further stated that out of said wedlock two sons were born namely Sh. Komal Singh and Sh. Balvir Singh Rawat. She further states that Late Sh. Chander Singh Rawat was a permanent employee of DESU (Delhi Vidhyut Board). She states that Late Sh. Chander Singh Rawat joined DESU on 17.02.1976 as an Assistant Line Man (ALM) with employee No. 23039 and that by way of VRS deceased Sh. Chander Singh Rawat was relieved from the service on 29.02.2008. That Late Sh. Chander Singh Rawat got superannuated on 31.03.2012 and on the age of superannuation, the relevant papers were sent to defendant no. 2 and Late Sh.Chander Singh Rawat was drawing pension from defendant no. 2.

3. Plaintiff further claims that defendant no. 1 is a fraud and previously also she had filed a petition for maintenance U/s 125 Cr.PC, before the MM, Mahila Court, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, in the year 2003 claiming herself to be the wife of Late Sh. Chander Singh Rawat, just to extract money Suit No. 1802/17(Old No. 450/17) Pg 2 of 23 by abusing the process of law. In the said petition she claimed to have gotten married with Late Sh. Chander Singh Rawat at Birla Mandir, Delhi on dated 09.03.1976 but never produced any proof of such marriage.

4. That in the case u/s 125 Cr.Pc, Late Sh. Chander Singh Rawat denied all the claims of the defendant no. 1 and had categorically denied the relationship of husband and wife with the defendant no. 1, later at the time of adducing evidence in that case late Sh. Chander Singh Rawat produced documents in the court showing her real name as Guddo instead of Parveen Devi and that she is the wife of one Sh. Vinod Kumar.

5. That the husband of the plaintiff Sh. Chander Singh Rawat expired on 25.10.2012 at his native village Pauri Garwal, Uttarkakhand and son of the plaintiff Sh. Komal Singh did the funeral ceremony of Sh. Chander Singh Rawat. That after the death of husband of the plaintiff, the defendant no. 1 stopped appearing in that case u/s 125 CrPC and consequently that case was dismissed for non appearance on 19.11.2015.

6. Plaintiff further states that the defendant no. 2 after receiving the application of the plaintiff for claim of family pension, did not dispose off the said application and neither did intimate the plaintiff as to the status Suit No. 1802/17(Old No. 450/17) Pg 3 of 23 of such application.

7. That the plaintiff on the last week of month of April 2014, visited the office of defendant no. 2 and on such visit she got to know that the application in question is kept pending because of the maintenance petition filed by one lady called Parveen Devi against the deceased Chander Singh Rawat. Plaintiff further claims that defendant no. 1 has never filed any claim before defendant no. 2 till date.

8. That the plaintiff filed the Writ Petition before the hon'ble Delhi High Court vide WP(c) No. 77734/2014 for seeking the direction to the defendant no. 2 to dispose of the said application of the plaintiff. That vide order dated 07.12.2017 it was held that the appropriate remedy in the present case would be by way of the present application and therefore the said Writ Petition was dismissed. Hence, the present suit. WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT NO. 1 :

9. It is the contention of defendant no. 1 that late Sh. Chander Singh Rawat was her husband and plaintiff only with the intention to grab the family pension of the deceased has filed this present suit under suppression of true facts. Defendant further stated that during the lifetime of Chander Singh Rawat defendant herein had filed a maintenance petition u/s 125 Suit No. 1802/17(Old No. 450/17) Pg 4 of 23 CrPC in a Delhi court and that vide order dated 03.07.2004, such court held that defendant no. 1 is the legally wedded wife of Sh. Chander Singh Rawat. She further stated that on such maintenance petition Sh. Chander Singh Rawat was also ordered to pay a maintenance of Rs.1,000/­ per month to her. She further stated that against such order Sh. Chander Singh Rawat also preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court, however such appeal was dismissed vide order dated 25.04.2005. It is the stand of the defendant that she is the first legally wife of Sh. Chander Singh Rawat and during subsistence of her marriage the deceased married another lady namely Mangli Devi and that being the first wife of the deceased plaintiff herein has no right, title or interest in the family pension of late Sh. Chander Singh Rawat as the second marriage is void ab­initio. For the offence of bigamy, defendant had also filed a complaint with the employer of Sh. Chander Singh Rawat and on such complaint a departmental inquiry was also conducted against him. Defendant no. 1 has stated that plaintiff is a fraud human by the name of Mangli Devi and later on just with the intention of illegally grabbing the family pension of Sh. Chander Singh Rawat she added Parveen with her name just to mislead the employer of her deceased husband. She further Suit No. 1802/17(Old No. 450/17) Pg 5 of 23 stated that Sh. Chander Singh Rawat in collusion with the plaintiff had entered into a compromise and in terms of that compromise had fixed a maintenance in favour of the plaintiff @ Rs.6,000/­ per month just to avoid paying the legal maintenance to the defendant. In addition to this, defendant has denied each and every averment raised by the plaintiff. WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT NO. 2 :

10. It is stated that Sh. Chander Singh Rawat was posted as ALM with employee no. 23039 in the employment of IPGCL. It is further stated by the defendant no. 2 that the deceased Sh. Chander Singh Rawat opted for voluntary retirement and accordingly he was relived from the services on 29.02.2008 and that he attained the age of superannuation on 31.03.2012. it was further stated that he was drawing pention from DVB ETBF - 2002. It is further stated that on the demise of Sh. Chander Singh Rawat on 25.10.2012 one Smt. Mangli Devi lodged her claim for the family pension, claiming that she is the legally wedded wife, however as per the nomination form of late Sh. Chander Singh Rawat the name of wife is shown as Smt. Mangli Devi @ Parveen Devi. It was further stated that during the lifetime of Sh. Chander Singh Rawat one lady namely Smt. Parveen had filed a petition CC No. 180/04/08 titled Suit No. 1802/17(Old No. 450/17) Pg 6 of 23 Parveen Devi vs Chander Singh Rawat, wherein she claimed herself to be the wife of Sh. Chander Singh Rawat and consequently claimed maintenance. It was further stated that the medical prescription card issued to late Sh. Chander Singh Rawat on 02.02.1980 in the place of the name of the wife, name of one Smt. Parveen is on record. Furthermore, even while applying for a new medical card name of the wife is written as Smt. Parveen. It was further brought to light that as per CCS Pension rules only a legally wedded wife is eligible for family pension. That on being aware of such discrepancy a clarification was sought from Smt. Mangli Devi, if Mangli Devi and Parveen Devi is one and the same person or two separate persons. However, rather than clarifying on this aspect she preferred a civil writ petition no. 7734/2014, wherein she claimed herself to be wife of late Sh. Chander Singh Rawat namely Mangli Devi @ Parveen. However such writ petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 07.02.2017 with an observation that the relief sought can only be granted by way of civil declaration. That discrepancy in the name of the wife of late Sh. Chander Singh Rawat was taken up with IPGCL being the employer of late Sh. Chander Singh Rawat. However, as per the information Suit No. 1802/17(Old No. 450/17) Pg 7 of 23 available on the personal file of late Sh. Chander Singh Rawat different documents showing two different names were found i.e. in some records the name of wife is depicted as Mangli Devi and in other records it is Smt. Parveen. It is further stated that as the employer of late Sh. Chander Singh Rawat was not able to establish the legally wedded wife of the deceased, hence family pension was witheld. It was further stated that once the issue of legally wedded wife is resolved the answering defendant has no objection in releasing the family pension to the legitimate beneficiary.

11. No admission/denial of the documents carried out.

12. Pleadings are complete. From the pleadings of the parties following issues are framed for trial:­

1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the decree of declaration, as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the decree of mandatory injunction, as prayed for? OPP

3. Relief.

13. Vide order dated 19.12.2019, following additional issue was frramed for trial:­ Issue no. 2A :­ Whether this court has subject matter jurisdiction in light of Section 7 of Suit No. 1802/17(Old No. 450/17) Pg 8 of 23 Family Court Act, 1984? OPP.

14. After framing of additional issue, all the issues are reiterated below:

1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the decree of declaration, as prayed for? OPP.
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the decree of mandatory injunction, as prayed for? OPP 2A. Whether this court has subject matter jurisdiction in light of Section 7 of Family Court Act, 1984? OPP.
3. Relief.

EVIDENCE :

15. In order to prove her case, plaintiff examined herself as PW1 who tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A. PW­1 relied on following documents:­

1. Ex.PW­1/1 (OSR) photocopy of marriage verification certificate issued by Gram Panchayat, Nogaon. (objected to by counsel for defendant No.1)

2. Ex.PW­1/2 (OSR) photocopy of Parivar Register - Nogaon. (objected to by counsel for defendant No.1)

3. Ex.PW­1/3 (OSR) photocopy of Parivar Register - Virsani. (objected to by counsel for defendant No.1)

4. Ex.PW­1/4 is de­exhibited is marked as Mark­C being photocopy Suit No. 1802/17(Old No. 450/17) Pg 9 of 23 of Ration Card. (objected to by counsel for defendant No.1)

5. Ex.PW­1/5 (OSR) photocopy of death certificate of husband of plaintiff.

6. Ex.PW­1/6 certified copy of order sheet dated 19.11.2015 of Principal Judge, Family Court, THC, Delhi.

7. Ex.PW­1/7 is de­exhibited is marked as Mark­D being photocopy of Application for grant of Family Pension. (objected to by counsel for defendant No.1)

8. Ex.PW­1/8 Internet generated copy of order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 07.02.2017 in W.P.(C) 7734/14 passed by Justice Valmiki Mehta (not objected to by counsel for defendants).

9. Mark­A certified copy of petition for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

10. Mark­B (colly.) certified copy of evidences recorded in petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

16. On the other hand, defendant to prove her case examined herself as DW1 whose examination­in­chief is by way of affidavit Ex. DW1/A. She has relied upon the following documents:­

1. Ex.DW­1/1 (OSR) copy of Ration Card.

Suit No. 1802/17(Old No. 450/17) Pg 10 of 23

2. Ex.DW­1/2 (OSR) copy of Aadhar Card.

3. Ex.DW­1/3 marriage photograph.

4. Ex.DW­1/4 certified copy of order dated 25.04.2005 passed by the court of Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Ld. ASJ, Delhi.

5. Ex.DW­1/5 is de­exhibited as same is already exhibited as Ex.PW­ 1/DX2 (Colly.) copy of DVB Employees Terminal Benefit Fund application.

6. Ex.DW­1/6 dasti copy of Successor Court order dated 11.12.2017.

7. Ex.DW­1/7 certified copy of order dated 03.07.2004 (Exhibit number is not mentioned in the affidavit).

8. Mark­A is already exhibited as Ex.D1W­2/5 copy of medical prescription card.

9. Mark­B photocopy of order of departmental enquiry initiated against Sh. Chander Singh Rawat.

ISSUE NO 1 :­ Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree of declaration, as prayed for ? OPP

17. It is the stand of the plaintiff that she is legally wedded first wife of one late Sh. Chander Singh Rawat, and that she married him in the year 1973, in their native village in Uttarakhand. It is further tha case of plaintiff that she is known by both names of Mangali Devi as well as Suit No. 1802/17(Old No. 450/17) Pg 11 of 23 Parveen Devi. She further claims that the defendant is the second wife of Late Sh. Chander Singh Rawat, and being the first legally wedded wife of Late Sh. Chander Singh Rawat, she is the only rightful beneficiary of the family pension of Sh. Chander Singh Rawat. The only point for consideration before this court is if the plaintiff is legally wedded wife of Sh. Chander Singh Rawat as per the requirement of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. To establish her case plaintiff has relied on Ex. PW­1/1, Ex. PW­ 1/2 and Ex. PW­1/3, which are marriage verification certificate issued by gram panchayat, Nogaon, Parivar Register, Nogaon and Parivar Register­ Virsani respectively. I have creafully gone through these documents. PW­1/1 is a document dated 08.11.2003, and written by one Sh. Ram Tirath Singh Bisht, Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, this document states that plaintiff herein is known to Sh. Ram Tirath Singh Bisht and that he certfies that the plaintiff is married to Late Sh. Chander Singh Rawat since 1973. This document further states that plaintiff is also known by the name of Parveen Devi and Surji. This document was produced in original in court however the author of this document did not depose before this court to prove its authenticity, futhermore this document was apparently created in the year 2003, that is 30 years after Suit No. 1802/17(Old No. 450/17) Pg 12 of 23 the alleged marriage of the plaintiff in 1973, meaning thereby this document is not even contemporaneous, which futher takes away from the probative value of this document. Similarly Ex. PW­1/2 and Ex. PW­ 1/3 are parivar registers in Nogaon and Virsani, in both these documents plaintiff's name can be seen in the entries written as 'Mangli Devi/Parveen'. Parivar Register in itself can neither be treated as a proof of marriage nor as a proof of identification, such kind of document can have corroborative value, however this document on its own strength is not a proof of marrige. On the other hand in the document Ex. PW­1/DX­ 1, which is a copy of ration card issued on 11.08.2005, in the place of name of wife of Chander Singh name 'Mangli Devi' only is written. On further probing of the record it was found that, the evidence adduced by defendant no. 2 from their own records and the records of Delhi Vidyut Board, shows a very inconsistent picture as to the name of the wife of Sh. Chander Singh Rawat. Although the plaintiff claims to be known by the name of both Mangli Devi and Parveen, document Ex. PW­1/D2X1, which is the application form for grant of family pension applied by the plaintif, she has identified herself as only Mangli Devi. (Ex. P­1/D2X2) However as per deposition of witness of defendant no. 2, i.e. D2W1, the Suit No. 1802/17(Old No. 450/17) Pg 13 of 23 records received by the employer of late Sh. Chander Singh Rawat has revealed the name of the wife of the deceased as Mangli Devi urf Parveen(Ex. P­1/D2X2). Interestingly enough in the deposition of D1W2 which was a witness from the employer of deceased Sh. Chander Singh Rawat. Documents were brought on record Ex. D1W2/4 and D1W2/5 which are application for issuing new medical card and medical prescription card respectively of deceased Chander Singh Rawat. Both these documents have been authored by the deceased himself and in both these documents in the place of name of the wife name of one Smt. Parveen is written. All these documents portray a very conflicting picture as to the identity of the wife of Late Sh. Chander Singh Rawat. Apart from this, there even appears to be a dispute pertaining to the identity and name of the plaintiff herself, and for reasons best known to the plaintiff, not even a single document establishing her identity and true name has been brought on record. Additionally, it was also argued by the Ld. Counsel for thr plaintiff that as per records brought by defendant No. 2, Sh. Chander Singh Rawat, was appointed by Delhi Vidyut Board on 17.02.1976 (Ex. P­1/D2X2), and as per his appointment letter (Ex. PW2/1), he was stated to be married at that point of time, and Suit No. 1802/17(Old No. 450/17) Pg 14 of 23 accordingly by necessary inference it stands proved that defendant No. 1 is the second wife of Sh. Chander Singh Rawat, because as per her own version she married him on 09.03.1976, which is subsequent to his date of appointment. Be that as it may, I do not agree with this argument of the plaintiff, merely pointing that defendant No. 1 may have been the second wife of the deceased will not absolve the plaintiff from establishing her case on its own merits, thats she is not just the wife of her deceased husband but also the legally wedded wife. Futhermore the entire case of the plaintiff is based on the validity of marriage which in the absence of any documentry proof like marriage registration certificate, could have been proved by oral testimony of the witness to the wedding ceremony or in absence of such witnesses, by other witnesses to the union of the parties, in terms of Section 50 read with Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act. Section 50 of the Evidence Act would be available to a party when no direct evidence is available to prove or dispute the factum of marriage. However in the present case apart from the plaintiff no other witness was summoned to corroborate the stand of the plaintiff. Therefore based on the discussions held above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has failed to discharge her burden of Suit No. 1802/17(Old No. 450/17) Pg 15 of 23 proof for the issue in hand. Accordingly issue no. 1 is decided against the plaintiff.

ISSUE No. 2:

Whether plaintiff is entitled to the decree of mandatory injunction, as prayed for ? OPP
18. The deceased Sh. Chander Singh Rawat was an employee of DESU (DVB), and being a government servant was governed by the CCS (Pension) Rules. As per such Rules, it is settled proposition that only a legally wedded wife shall be entitled to family pension and for that matter, a second wife shall not be entitled to family pension as a legally wedded wife. As discussed in Issue no. 1 above, since the plaintiff herein has failed to establish her matrimonial status as the legally wedded wife of Late Sh. Chander Singh Rawat, therefore as a necessary corollary, the relief of Mandatory injunction for release of family pension can also not be granted the plaintiff. Accordingly issue no. 2 also is decided against the plaintiff.

ISSUE No. 2A Whether this court has subject matter jurisdiction in light of Section 7 of Family Court Act, 1984? OPP

19. As is stated above, the present suit is one for declaration of validity of Suit No. 1802/17(Old No. 450/17) Pg 16 of 23 marriage of plaintiff with Late Sh. Chander Singh Rawat, on the grounds that she is the first wife of the deceased, as against the defendant no. 1, who is alleged to be the second wife of deceased. For the purpose of this issue, several rounds of detailed arguments were heard on behalf of both the sides. Since the present is a legal issue, reliance was placed on many judgments of both High Courts and Supreme Courts. Before examining the issue at hand, I find it refer to the relevant provisons of Family Courts Act, 1984:

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) .............

(b) a suit or proceeding for a declaration as to the validity of a marriage or as to the matrimonial status of any person;

8. Exclusion of jurisdiction and pending proceedings Where a Family Court has been established for any area,­

(a) no district court or any subordinate civil court referred to in sub­section (1) of section 7 shall, in relation to such area, have or exercise any jurisdiction in respect of any suit or proceeding of the nature referred to in the explanation to that sub­section;

Suit No. 1802/17(Old No. 450/17) Pg 17 of 23

20. On a plain reading of Section 7 (1) explanation (b) read with section 8(a) it appears that for the purpose of declaration as to validity of marriage or matrimonial status of any person, a suit of declaration under Specific Relief Act would by barred in a civil court. However, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff refuted from this interpretation of law and argued that, Family courts Act was drafted as an enactment to try the family matters arising out of the marriages of the parties, and if any of the spouses is absent in the litigation than it can never be considered as a cause falling within the realm of the Family Court. For the purpose of this argument, ld. Counsel for the plaintiff relied on a judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a case titled Manita Khurana v. Indra Khurana CM(M) 1427/2009, wherein it was held that "....claim of a third party to a marriage even if she be the mother of one of the spouses cannot be adjudicated before the Family Court...". I have carefully gone through the above judgment and I am of the opinion that this judgment emnates from a completely different set of facts and the reliance on this judgment for the purpose of present suit is missplaced. In the abovesaid case the applleant and the respondent were daughter­in­law and mother­in­law respectively and the suit in question was one for recovery of possession of property and mesne Suit No. 1802/17(Old No. 450/17) Pg 18 of 23 profits. In such judgment while stating its reason to oust the jurisdiction of Family Court, it was held that, the cause of action for the suit is the refusal of the petitioner/defendant to vacate the house of which the respondent/plaintiff claims to the exclusive owner. Merely because certain facts leading to the cause of action referred to the marital relationship of the petitioner/defendant would not make the suit as one in circumstances arising out of marital realtionship. It was futher held that the relief sought by the respondent/plaintiff was actually arising out of a title/ownership dispute over the suit property against the alleged illegal occupation of the applleant/defendant and not out of any marital relationship. On a plain reading of the above judgment, one can clearly deduce that the Hon'ble court has carved out a clear distinction between cause of action arising out of a marital relationship and a cause of action where question of marital status is merely an incidental offshoot, the latter being not triable by a Family Court. Meaning thereby that a bundle of facts from which the entire relief and cause of action of the plaintiff arose if do not directly and substantially spring from the marital relationship or validity of marriage, the suit would be one triable by a civil court and jurisdiction of Family Court cannot be invoked.

Suit No. 1802/17(Old No. 450/17) Pg 19 of 23

21. On the other hand in the present suit the entire relief of the plaintiff hinges on the validity of her marrige with the deceased Sh. Chander Singh Rawat, as the very relief of declaration of her legality of her marriage is sought, and the relief of mandatory injunction is entirely dependant on such declaration. For the purpose of this issue I place my reliance on a Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala titled Syamaladevi v. Sarala Devi & Ors. 2009 SCC OnLine Ker 508.This judgment is almost based on similar facts as the present suit wherein the Hon'ble court interpretted the scope of Section 7 (1) explanation (b) of the Family courts Act, 1984 by drawing on the prominace of the words 'between parties to the marriage' and the legislature's specific intent in omitting these words from explanation (b), as against explanation (a) of the same section. It was held that "clause (b) is in the nature of a proceeding relating to decalation as to the nullity of marriage or the matrimonial status of a person. However, unlike clause (a) it does noy say that such suit or proceedings should be between the parties to the marriage. In other words, clause (b) is widely couched to include the proceedings of the nature referred to regarding declaration of the validity of the marriage or it could be for the declaration of the matrimonial status Suit No. 1802/17(Old No. 450/17) Pg 20 of 23 of any person......... It need not necessarily be between the paties and even after the death of them, such question may arise and in case of any dispute and in any necessity of giving such declaration arises, it is possible to comprehend such disputes as falling under section clause (b) of section 7 of the Act" In this case also the dispute was between two alleged wives of the same man, and the relief sought was of declaration of the validity of the marraige, and it was held that the dispute squarely fell under the mischief of Section 7 (1) Explaination (b) of the Family Courts Act.

22. This same ratio and interpreation was fortified by the Apex Court in a recent judgment titled Balram yadav v. Fulamaniya Yadav, (2016) 13 SCC 308, wherein the Apex court propounded on the ambit and scope of Section 7(1) Explanation (b) wherein it was held that "Section 7(1) Explanation (b), a Suit or 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, 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 Suit No. 1802/17(Old No. 450/17) Pg 21 of 23 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 matrimonial status. Section also endorses the view which we have taken, since the Family Courts Act 1984, has an overriding effect on other laws"

23. In this judgement Hon'ble Supreme Court has very uneqivocally held that any suit for decalaration of matrimonial status of any person clearly falls within the purview of family Courts Act and that Family Courts Act being a special legislation by virtue of Section 20 of the Act shall have overriding effect over any other law. In the present case the relief sought is one for decalaration under section 34 of Specific Relief Act, however in the presence of a specific legislation like Family Courts Act, such Act shall supersede Specific Relief Act.

24. Based on the discussion above I am of the considered opinion that the dispute between plaintiff and defenadant no. 1 is not merely based on the right to Family pension of the deceased Sh. Chander Singh Rawat, but is rather based on the very validity of the respective marraiges, if any, of the parties to him, because the entire entitlement of both of the parties is solely dependant on legality of the marriage in terms of Hindu Marriage Suit No. 1802/17(Old No. 450/17) Pg 22 of 23 Act. For this purpose Section 7 (1) Explanation (b) is specific provison because it entails in itsef the matrimonial status of "any person", be it inter­se spouses or otherwise, so long as the matrimonial status/validity of marriage is the substantial question in issue. Therefore by virtue of Section 8 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, I am of the view that this court does not have the jurisdiction to try the present suit for declaration of validity of marriage. Accordingly issue no. 2A is decided against the plaintiff.

RELIEF

25. In view of the discusion hereinabove on the issues, it is held that plaintiff has not been able to prove her case. Therefore, suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Digitally signed

26. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. by CHARU CHARU ASIWAL File be consigned to Record Room. ASIWAL Date:

2019.12.24 16:41:31 +0530 Announced in the open court (Charu Asiwal) on 24.12.2019 Civil Judge - 08 (Central)/Delhi Suit No. 1802/17(Old No. 450/17) Pg 23 of 23