A suit for negative declaration regarding marital status is maintainable, as it pertains to legal character and does not solely rely on Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. A pivotal question of law which arises for consideration, in this revision application, is: “whether a suit for declaration simpliciter that there is no marital relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, is maintainable” ?

2. The background facts in which the aforesaid question crops up for consideration can be stated as under:

2.1 The plaintiff and the defendant are residents of the same village. They were acquainted with each other. The defendant took undue advantage of the proximity, and falsely claimed that defendant’s marriage was solemnized with the plaintiff on 21^st September 2018 at Janjagruti Matrimonial Alliance Center, Chiplun. Asserting that no valid marriage was ever solemnized between the plaintiff and the defendant and the later was falsely claiming that the plaintiff is the wife of the defendant, the plaintiff instituted a suit for a declaration that no marriage was solemnized between the plaintiff and the defendant on 21^st September 2018 or on any other day, at Janjagruit Matrimonail Alliace Center, Chiplun or at any other place.

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.

2.4 The plaintiff resisted the application for rejection of the Plaint contending inter alia that if the averments in the plaint are read as a whole, it cannot be said that the plaintiff is seeking a negative declaration. Moreover, the Suit cannot be said to have been instituted under the provisions of Section 34 of the Act of 1963 only. The plaintiff was entitled to seek declaratory relief under Section 9 and Order VII Rule 7 of the Code de hors the provisions contained in Section 34 of the Act of 1963. At any rate, the plaintiff was seeking a declaration as to her status, and, therefore, the purported bar under Section 34 of the Act of 1963 was inapplicable.

2.5 By the impugned order, the learned Civil Judge was persuaded to reject the application observing that a Suit of the present nature for negative declaration was maintainable. The relief sought by the plaintiff was of a substantive nature. Thus, there was no substance in the application.

2.6 Being aggrieved, the defendant has invoked the revisional jurisdiction.

3. I have heard Mr. Koregave, the learned Counsel for the applicant, and Mr. Yuvraj Narvankar, the learned Counsel for the respondent, at some length. The learned Counsel took the Court through the Plaint, averments in the application for rejection of the Plaint and the reply thereto.

4. Mr. Koregave, the learned Counsel for the applicant, would urge that a person is not entitled to seek a negative declaration under Section 34 of the Act of 1963. It was submitted that the text of Section 34 of the Act of 1963 warrants that the person seeking a declaration must claim to be entitled to any legal character, status or right. A declaration that the plaintiff is not married to the defendant does not fall wi