The main legal point established is that the jurisdiction of the Civil Judge was excluded by the Family Courts Act, and the plaintiff should approach the appropriate court for seeking the declaration of her status and for setting aside the ex-parte decree.

Heard Mr. R.K.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the defendant No.8 in the suit being Title Suit No.60 of 2015 pending in the court of the Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Court No.1, West Tripura, Agartala. Also heard Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondents No.1 and 2, Mr. D. Sharma, learned counsel who has entered in appearance for the respondents No.3 to 8 and Mr. H. Deb, learned A.S.G.I. for the respondent No.9, the Accountant General (A & E), Agartala.

2. The suit being T.S. 60 of 2015 was instituted by the respondents No.1 and 2 herein for declaration that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Amar Chandra Deb since deceased. Further reliefs as prayed in the suit include the declaration that the decree of divorce dated 08.04.2012 as passed by the Judge, Family Court, West Tripura, Agartala in T.S. (Divorce) No.121/2011 is not binding upon the plaintiff No.1 and no consequence would visit her emanating from the said decree.

3. Further declaration and consequential reliefs are for having all the service benefits accruing from the death of Amar Chandra Deb. Even another declaration has been sought to the effect that the claim of the defendant No.8 that she was the lawfully married wife of Amar Chandra Deb since deceased is not genuine and/or not legal.

The defendant No.8 has raised an objection in respect of the jurisdiction of the court to entertain and by the suit in view of the provision of Section 11 of the CPC. The said objection as raised by the defendant No.8 by the application dated 20.01.2016 has been rejected by the order dated 10.03.2016 delivered in Title Suit No.60 of 2015 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, West Tripura, Agartala (Court No.1). In the said order it has been observed that :

“It may be true to say that this court has no jurisdiction to decide the marital status of a party because of the bar provided under the Family Courts Act, but the relief for declaring the status as legal heirs and consequential relief for entitlement of service benefits as sought herein cannot be said to be barred without having a decision on merit. If the declaration of marital status of defendant No.8 taken to be barred under the Family Courts Act, in that event this suit can be said to be barred partly by resjudicata and hence the plaint cannot be rejected as prayed for.”

4. Mr. R. K. P. Singh, learned counsel has clearly submitted that the suit is barred under Section 11 of the CPC and hence the court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, West Tripura, Agartala does not have any jurisdiction. That apart, Sections 7 and 8 of the Family Courts Act take away jurisdiction of the civil courts.

According to Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, the Civil Judge, Senior Division or for that matter any other Civil Court does have any jurisdiction to declare the marital status in a suit or in a proceeding between the parties.

5. It appears from the records that the decree of divorce dated 28.06.2012 was issued in Title Suit (Divorce) 121 of 2011 by the Judge, Family Court, Agartala. By the said decree, the marriage between the plaintiff No.1 and her husband, namely Amar Ch. Deb was dissolved. The said judgment and decree dated 28.06.2012 has not been challenged by the plaintiff No.1. According to her the judgment and decree was passed ex-parte and no notice was even issued on the plaintiff No.1 and hence the respondent No.1 herein she was not aware of the proceeding for divorce being T.S. (Divorce) 121 of 2011.

6. According to the plaintiff respondent No.1, she is entitled to get the declaration that she is the legally married wife of Amar Chandra Deb since deceased and the plaintiff No.2 is her daughter who was born in the wed-lock of the respondent No.1 and Amar Chandra Deb, now deceased. Thus, not the defendant No.8- petitioner, but the plaintiff-respondent No.1 and the plaintiff-respondent No.2 are the legal heirs to inherit the properties left by Amar Cha