Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. It is the further case that defendant No.1 then started asserting that she had married the plaintiff on 10.10.1987 and defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the children born from the said wedlock.

7. The plaint came to be returned at the time of final hearing of the suit solely on the legal contention that the suit falls outside the purview of jurisdiction of the Family Court which is authorised to take up matters as stipulated under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act. The adjudication by the Family Court is solely on the interpretation of explanation to Section 7 of the Family Courts Act. The Court has also taken note of another contention relating to the nature of relief being a negative declaration. The Family Court has referred to explanation NC: 2025:KHC-K:543-DB to Section 7 of the Family Courts Act and has held that the Family Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit which only falls within the scope of Section 7 including the explanation to the said section. The Court in its order has observed that a negative declaration is sought for and in terms of the judgment of the Division Bench in Bhuvaneshwari vs. Revappa @ Ranisiddaramappa Kolli (since deceased) by LRs.1, such relief is impermissible.

15. Insofar as the finding that the suit is barred by virtue of having sought for a negative declaration by reliance on the judgment in the case of Bhuvaneshwari v. Revappa (supra), in light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Balram Yadav v. Fulmaniya Yadav (supra) which holds that such prayer would be maintainable, the latter view would prevail.

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:543-DB

16. The Apex Court in the case of Balram Yadav vs. Fulmaniya Yadav in Civil Appeal No.4500/2016 while considering identical factual matrix with both legal contentions noticed above has in its observations at paras- 6 and 7 held that if 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 and it would not matter whether it is an affirmative relief or a negative relief. Paras-6 and 7 of the said judgment reads as follows:

7. Under Section 7(1) Explanation (b), a Suit or a proceeding for a declaration as to the validity of both

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:543-DB 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 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 20 also endorses the view which we have taken, since the Family Courts Act, 1984, has an overriding effect on other laws."