Back
R.D.DHANUKA, V.G.BISHT
Nayana M Ramani – Appellant
Versus
Fizzah Navnitlal Shah – Respondent
Key Points: - The appellant, a married daughter, was held to have locus standi to challenge the validity of her father’s marriage to the respondent under Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act, particularly Explanation (b) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The judgment held that Order 2 Rule 2 CPC is not applicable to bar the Family Court petition because the relief sought (declaration as to the validity of the marriage and matrimonial status) falls under Section 7(b) and cannot be adjudicated in a Civil Court due to the overriding exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The Court interpreted Section 7(1) and its Explanation (b) to support the rationale that not only parties to the marriage but interested persons/beneficiaries related to the spouses may challenge the validity of a marriage, aligning with the Objects and Reasons of the Act and subsequent precedents (Balram Yadav; Syamaladevi Devi) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The Full Bench cited Balram Yadav and emphasized the overriding effect of the Act (Section 20) on other laws, and that High Courts/ Civil Courts lose jurisdiction over matters within Family Court’s purview when exercising ordinary original jurisdiction in such matters (!) (!) (!) . - The Court directed that the Family Court petition be restored and decided on merits expeditiously, and rejected stay of operation of the order (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Non-joinder of Mansoor Hatimbhai Chherwala was not fatal to maintainability; the petitioner need not implead him as a necessary party for the relief sought, given the nature of evidence required for Fatimid law divorces and the scope of relief (!) (!) (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT
V. G. Bisht, J. - This appeal arises from the common order dated 15th July 2019 on Exh. 1 and Exh. 11 passed by the Judge, Family Court No.2, Mumbai, whereby the learned Judge dismissed Family Court Petition No.B-62 of 2016 under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code").
1A The respondent also assails above said order by way of cross-objection in as much as grounds for rejection of said Family Court Petition viz. locus, limitation and non-joinder of necessary party were rejected by the learned Judge of the Family Court.
2. Facts which lie in narrow compass required for disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows :
(a) The appellant herein is a married daughter of late Mr.Navnitlal R. Shah (for short the appellant's father) with whom the respondent alleges to have got married on 24th July 2003 after the demise of appellant's mother viz. Hiralaxmi Shah in February 2003. The marriage between the appellant/petitioner's father and the respondent was solemnized before the Marriage Officer, Mumbai.
(b) The appellant's father expired on 30th June 2015 leaving behind three married daughters and one married son. The appellant's fa
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
