Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2.2 The defendant appeared and resisted the suit. 2.3 The defendant also filed an application for rejection of the Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code asserting inter alia that the plaintiff is seeking a negative declaration that no marriage was solemnized between the plaintiff and the defendant. Such a negative declaration cannot be granted under the provisions of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act 1963 ("the Act of 1963"). Thus, there was a bar to the Suit seeking negative declaration. Resultantly, the Plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code.

3 (2001) 3 SCC 537.

914-CRA-117-2024.DOC

9. As a matter of principle, according to Mr. Narvankar, it cannot be said that a suit for negative declaration is not at all maintainable. The Court essentially deals with the legal character, right or status. The form of declaration is not material. Mr. Narvankar placed reliance on a judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Narhar Raj (died) by L.Rs and Ors. vs. Tirupathybibi and Anr. 4 wherein the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a suit for a relief of negative declaration is maintainable.

17. In the light of the aforesaid exposition of law, the edifice of the submission of Mr. Koregave that section 34 of the Act, 1963, bars the declaration, as sought in the instant case, and, therefore, the plaint deserves to be rejected stands dismantled. A civil Court is competent to grant a declaration regarding the marital status dehors the provisions contained in section 34 of the Act, 1963.

18. This propels me to the moot question as to whether a negative declaration as to marital status can be granted. First and foremost, from the phraseology of section 34 of the Act, 1963, (extracted above) an inexorable inference can not be drawn that such a negative declaration, cannot be made. As noted above, the term legal character is of wide amplitude. The 'marital status' as a personal attribute and qua a particular person, squarely falls within the ambit of legal character. If a 6 AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1810.

19. Indeed there seems to be a cleavage in the judicial opinion of the High Courts on the tenability of such a suit for negative declaration as to marital status. In the case of Bhuvaneshwari (supra) which constituted the sheet anchor of submission of Mr. Koregave, a Division Bench of Karnataka High Court while deciding the question as to whether a suit seeking declaration that the defendant is not the wife of the plaintiff is maintainable before the Family Court, after considering the provisions contained in section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 which confers the jurisdiction upon a Family Court, held that the relief in the nature of negative declaration in respect of a marriage, is not tenable before the Family Court. After recording aforesaid view, the Division Bench ventured to add that the relief of such nature was even beyond the scope of section 34 of the Act, 1963. The observations in paragraph 22 of the judgment are relevant and hence extracted below:-