Third parties lack standing to challenge the validity of a marriage under the Family Courts Act if they do not hold legal rights regarding the marital relationship.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 52083-2022

1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 187/2022

2. The petition filed by the Appellant under Section 7(1) (b) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 seeking declaration that Respondent no.1 remains legally and validly married to respondent no.2 as on the date of the application, has been rejected as not being maintainable.

3. The Appellant had filed the subject petition under Section 7(1) (b) of the Family Courts Act contending that he is a retired Lieutenant Colonel, and his daughter aged 28 years got married to Respondent no.1 on 16.08.2016 without his consent, and on the premise that he was not married.

4. It is contended in the petition that he subsequently learnt that Respondent no.1 had filed a petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights against Respondent no.2 wherein he had contended that he was married to Respondent no.2 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. It is submitted that in the said petition it is contended that Respondent nos.1 and 2 have continued to remain as husband and wife in the eyes of law as no decree of dissolution of marriage had taken place. In these circumstances, a declaration was sought that respondent no.1 was legally and validly married to Respondent no.2 as on date.

5. An application was filed by Respondent no.1 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that petition was filed without any cause of action. In reply to the application, Appellant had contended that his daughter was subjected to deceitful and unlawful marriage ceremonies by way of suppression of fact and inducement and has forced his daughter to cohabit with Respondent no.1, which was an offence under Section 493 IPC.

6. The Family Court has noticed the contention of the Appellant that his daughter had married without his consent. The court also held that the daughter of the Appellant was a necessary party to the proceedings and she had not approached the court or pleaded any disability which prevented her from approaching the court, and despite opportunity, Appellant had failed to implead his daughter as a party, and accordingly, the court held that petition as made out was not maintainable and, accordingly, rejected the same.

7. Before us, learned counsel for the Appellant contends that explanation (b) to Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 was not maintainable at the behest of third party also, and it was not necessary for the parties to the marriage to be impleaded in the proceedings.

8. The main grievance of the Appellant, as emanating from the pleadings is that his daughter has married without his consent to an already married man. Petition discloses that daughter was aged 28 years when she got married.

9. Appellant has filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC. Along with the application, a statement of the daughter of the appellant recorded on 24.02.2022 has been placed on record. The statement is recorded in criminal proceedings initiated by the wife of the Appellant i.e., the girl's mother against Respondent No. 1.

10. In her statement, the daughter of the Appellant, has categorically stated that she got married with Respondent no.1 in August 2016, and after their marriage, she has been living with her in-laws and has given birth to a baby boy in 2018. She has specifically stated that on the date of her marriage, she was aware that her husband was already married. She had stated tha