Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12. Learned counsel for appellants would contend that the relief sought in the suit is a negative declaration and such a relief cannot be granted under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. On that point he placed reliance on the decision rendered by a Division Bench this Court in the case of Bhuvaneshwari Vs. Revappa @ Rani Siddaramappa Kolli (since

- 13 -

NC: 2023:KHC:19702 deceased) by LRs, reported in 2012 (4) KCCR 2690 (DB) wherein it is held as under:

- 15 -

NC: 2023:KHC:19702 Taramani on 08.05.1980 and out of that wedlock two sons were born to him. As the plaintiff took up the said contention, the Court by referring to the decision of this Court in the case of Rudramma Vs. Puttaveerabhadrappa reported in ILR 1986 Kar. 1242 has reserved liberty to the parties to establish the status of their marriage on the declaration of nullity of marriage before the competent Court for cancellation of orders of maintenance on production of proof. It is his contention that therefore, the plaintiff has filed the suit seeking declaration. He contends that the suit is maintainable even though negative declaration is sought for. The suit in the present form seeking negative declaration is not barred under any of the laws. On that point he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ganga Bai Vs. Vijay Kumar and others reported in MANU/SC/0020/1974. In the said decision it is held as under:

- 18 -

NC: 2023:KHC:19702 Said decision has been referred to by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mardia Chemicals Ltd., and others Vs. Union of Inida (UOI) and ors., reported in AIR 2004 SC 2371.

16. He contends that on appreciating the evidence on record the first Appellate Court has rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff.

17. Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhuvaneshwarai (supra), referring to the provisions of Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 and Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1962, has held that seeking negative declaration that defendant is not plaintiff's wife and marriage had never taken place is beyond the scope of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. In the said suit the plaintiff had sought for decree declaring that the plaintiff is not legally wedded wife of the defendant. In the present suit also the plaintiff has sought for declaration that plaintiff has not

- 20 -
NC: 2023:KHC:19702 declaration regarding the matrimonial status. Section 20 also endorses the view which we have taken, since the Family Courts Act, 1984, has an overriding effect on other laws."

18. In arriving at that conclusion the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the provisions of Sections 7, 8 and 20 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. Therefore, in view of the above decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court the contention of the learned counsel for appellants that negative declaration cannot be sought for has no substance. Accordingly, it is rejected.