RAMESH MADHAV BAPAT, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the husband. He had filed O. S. S. R. No. 1693 of 2000 in the Family court at City Civil Court, Hyderabad for dissolution of his marriage with respondent no. 1.

( 2 ) THE facts leading to the filing of this appeal can be briefly narrated as follows: that the appellant and the respondent no. l are Christians by religion, but they were married according to the Hindu Vedic rites in a Hindu temple. According to the averments made by the petitioner herein, that he was forced to marry the respondent no. l. Therefore, he filed O. S. SR. No. 1693 of 2000 for dissolution of his marriage with respondent No. l with a prayer to set aside the Marriage Certificate No. 78 of 1999, issued on 8-9-1999 by the Marriage registrar, Srikakulam and to dissolve the marriage between them. It further appears from the record that when the suit was presented, the office raised the objection stating that when there is a specific provision under the Hindu Marriage Act for declaration that the marriage is null and void in case the marriage was performed forcibly, how the suit is maintainable. The counsel for the petitioner-appellant herein replied in writing stating that when the marriage itself is challenged, the suit is maintainable. The learned Judge heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and held that the suit in Family Court is not maintainable for declaration of marriage between the parties as null and void. It was further observed by the learned Judge "when there is a specific provision under section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act for voidable marriage, wherein a separate clause is provided for the marriages of without consent, the parties have to seek relief under that Act only but not by a suit. Further, the relief sought for in the suit is also not proper". In view of the circumstances, the learned Judge held the suit is not maintainable. Hence, the suit was returned to the petitioner.

( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the said order, the husband-appellant herein filed the present appeal.

( 4 ) THE question that arises for consideration before this Court is, as to whether a suit of this nature is maintainable in Family Court?

( 5 ) IT is not in dispute that the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 were Christians by religion. Their marriage was performed according to Hindu Vedic rites at sri Suryanarayana Swamy Vari temple at arasavilli, Srikakulam District. According to the contention of the appellant herein, that he was forced to marry respondent No. l and therefore he was constrained to file the suit for declaration that the so called marriage is null and void.

( 6 ) THE question of jurisdiction has to be decided in this case. Section 7 of the Family courts Act, 1984 confer the jurisdiction on the following subjects to the Family Court. Section 7 of the Act reads as follows: "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 sub ordinate civil Court for the area to which jurisdiction of the Family Court extends. Explanation: The suits and proceedings referred to in this subsection are suits and proceedings of the following nature namely: (a) a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage for a decree of nullity of marriage (declaring the marriage to be null and void or, as the case may be annulling the marriage) or restitution of conjugal rights or judicial separation or dissolution of marriage; (b) a suit or proceeding for a declaration as to the validity of marriage or as to the matrimonial status of any person; (c) a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage with respect to the property o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document