The jurisdiction of civil courts is limited where a Family Court has been established, barring civil suits concerning marital status declarations.

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

This is an appeal filed by defendant No.1 against a confirming judgment.

2. The judgment passed by the learned District Judge, Kandhamal on 23.08.2023 followed by decree in RFA No.18 of 2022 on 01.09.2023 is under challenge whereby, the judgment passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Phulbani in C.S. No.24/2018 followed by decree, was confirmed.

2.1 For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their respective status before the trial Court.

3. In view of the order proposed to be passed, it is not felt necessary to relate the facts of the case in detail. It would suffice to only mention that the suit in question was filed by the plaintiff seeking a declaration that she is the only legally married wife of Keshab Mukhi with negative declaration that defendant No.1 is not the legally wedded wife of Keshab Mukhi with further prayer to direct defendant No.3 to disburse all the pensionary benefits in her favour. Be it noted that said Keshab Mukhi died on 02.01.2017, leaving behind the plaintiff. It is alleged that Keshab Mukhi was never married to defendant No.1 and as such she is not entitled to family pension. The plaintiff claimed to be the first wife of Keshab Mukhi. She also contended that the defendant No.1 is not the legally wedded wife of Keshab Mukhi. She received regular maintenance of an amount of Rs.200/- by judgment passed in her favour in M.C. No.7/1994. When she applied for a legal heir certificate to avail the benefits of her late husband, she discovered that the defendant no.1 was claiming to be the legally married wife of her late husband and had been issued with the legal heir certificate. Subsequently, she was declared as the legally married wife of late Keshab Mukhi by Tahasildar, Phiringia on 25.07.2017, vide M.C. No.22/2017, cancelling his previous order dated 12.04.2017 and directed the defendant no.1 to surrender her legal heir certificate. She filed the suit claiming the aforementioned reliefs as defendant No.1 had applied for legal heir certificate.

4. The defendants have jointly filed their written statement denying the averments made in the plaint, claiming that there was no valid marriage between the plaintiff and Keshab Mukhi. The claim of the plaintiff of receiving maintenance of Rs.200/- was also denied as baseless. The defendants further claimed that the deceased, Keshab Mukhi lived happily with them which the plaintiff knew.

5. The trial Court framed four issues and after analysing the oral and documentary evidence in light of Section-34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, dismissed the suit.

6. The plaintiff carried the matter in appeal. The First Appellate Court took up maintainability of the suit in the civil court for consideration as the only point. Relevant provisions of the Family Courts Act namely Sections-7 and 8, were referred to along with some judgments and concluded that the suit could not have been instituted in a civil court and was not maintainable in the said Court. Despite having held so, the First Appellate Court further held that the conclusion of the trial court, though flowing from other considerations, cannot be disturbed. The appeal was thus, dismissed.

7. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed the instant Second Appeal which was admitted on the following substantial question of law:-

(i) Whether both the Courts below were correct in entertaining the suit and the appeal arising therefrom in view of Section 7 of the Family Courts Act read with Section 8 of C.P.C?

8. Heard Mr.C. Samantaray, learne