( 1 ) IN this writ petition, the constitutional validity of clause (a) of explanation to Section 7 (1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 relating to causes under Section 12 (1) (c) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is challenged as violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Indian Constitution.

( 2 ) WE will mention some facts leading to filing of this writ petition. Petitioner is the husband and the 2nd Respondent is his wife. Both were married according to Hindu rites on 30-10-1996. But, shortly thereafter there was strained relationship and in the same year, OP No. 408 of 1996 was filed by the 2nd Respondent before the Family Court, Visakhapatnam stating so many facts and pleading invalidity of the marriage on the ground that the marriage was not according to her free will and consent, but by force and fraud and that the marriage was void and a nullity. A criminal complaint in Cr. No. 258 of 1996 has also been filed. But, that is a question apart. The further complaint of the petitioner is that even though, he had filed IA No. 345 of 1997 seeking assistance of an advocate to conduct the case on his behalf, the same was dismissed and CRP No. 2108 of 1997 filed against the same was withdrawn and then this writ petition has been filed questioning the constitutional vires of the provision itself.

( 3 ) IT is apt to extract the provisions which arise for interpretation in this case : "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, 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) 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," The above provision is of the Family Courts Act, 1984. Section12 (1) (c) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 reads:"12. Voidable marriage :-- (1) Any marriage solemnised, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be voidable and may be annulled by a decree of nullity on any of the following grounds, namely: (a) xxx xxx xxx (b) xxx xxx xxx (c) that the consent of the petitioner, or where the consent of the guardian in marriage of the petitioner is required under Section 5, the consent of such guardian was obtained by force or fraud. "

( 4 ) MR. N. V. Ranganadham, the learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contends that the provisions contained in Clause (a) of Explanation to Section 7 (1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is arbitrary and also affects the fundamental right to life and thus, is repugnant to Articles 14 and 21 of Indian Constitution. He submits that the causes under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 are triable by the civil Courts where the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable and where the legal practitioners can be engaged as of right and rules of Evidence Act are applicable and taking out such causes out of the civil Court and entrusting to Family Courts where the rules of evidence of Indian Evidence Act are made inapplicable and even the legal practitioners are not allowed, is arbitrary and also invades fundamental right to life. He submits that the Family Courts Act, by its very nature and constitution, deals with the causes arising out of the admitted marriage and cannot deal with the disputed marriage. For this purpose, he takes us to the statement of objects and reasons laying emphasi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document