ORISSA HIGH COURT
B.P. Routray and Chittaranjan Dash, JJ.
Sandhya Rani Sahoo @ Mohanty – Appellant
versus
Anusaya Mohanty – Opp. Parties
MATA No.4 of 2024
Decided on 2.4.2025

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1)Jurisdiction of Family Court – Suit seeking declaration of marital status whether it affirms or denies existence of a valid marriage squarely falls within ambit of Family Court’s jurisdiction.
(2) Limitation – A party seeking to establish or refute marital status cannot be barred from seeking such declaration merely because a certain period has elapsed, particularly when dispute has long-standing consequences for inheritance, legitimacy, and personal law rights – Concept of “continuing cause of action” applies in cases involving marital status.
(3) Daughter is allotted same share as is allotted to a son.

Headnote:

(A) Family Courts Act, 1984 – Sections 7(1)(b), 8 and 20 – Jurisdiction of Family Court – Suit seeking declaration of marital status whether it affirms or denies existence of a valid marriage squarely falls within ambit of Family Court’s jurisdiction – Once Family Court jurisdiction is established over a matter, any attempt to bypass it would undermine very purpose of establishing Family Courts, which is to provide a specialised forum for resolving family disputes efficiently – In present case, core of the matter is a declaration of marital status, which aligns squarely with Section 7(1)(b) of Family Courts Act – Family Court had proper jurisdiction under Section 7(1)(b) of Act to entertain Respondent’s prayerfor a declaration of her marital status – Appellant’s argument that Respondent ought to have approached Civil Court under Section 34 of Specific Relief Act is misplaced, as Family Courts Act is a special law enacted to deal with disputes of a matrimonial nature, including determination of marital status. (Paras 10 and 11)

(B) Limitation Act, 1963 – Sections 29(3) and 14(2) read with Article 58 – Family Courts Act, 1984 – Section 7 – Suit seeking declaration of marital status – Period of limitation – A party seeking to establish or refute marital status cannot be barred from seeking such declaration merely because a certain period has elapsed, particularly when dispute has long-standing consequences for inheritance, legitimacy, and personal law rights – Concept of “continuing cause of action” applies in cases involving marital status – Respondent’s right to assert her status as legally wedded wife of deceased is not a right that extinguishes over time, as it forms foundation of her claims over his property and other legal entitlements – As long as Respondent’s status remained contested by Appellant, cause of action continued – Even assuming that no statutory exclusion under Section 14(2) applies, continuing nature of dispute sustains Respondent’s right to seek a declaration – Respondent’s suit before Family Court is not barred by limitation – Time spent in prosecuting the matter before Civil Court and subsequent challenge before High Court must be excluded under Section 14(2) of Limitation Act. (Paras16 and 17)

(C) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 16 – Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 3 – Right of inheritance of children – Section 16 of HMA confers legitimacy on children born from void and voidable marriages, ensuring that they are entitled to inherit their parents’ property – Under HSA, legitimate children including those legitimised under Section 16 of HMA, fall under category of Class-I heirs, giving them undisputed right to inherit self-acquired property of their parents – Section 16(3) of HMA restricts property rights of such children to only property that comes in share of parents out of joint family property besides self-acquired property. (Paras19 and 21)

(D) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 6 – Devolution of interest in coparcenary property – Where a Hindu dies after commencement of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (39 of 2005), his interest in property of a Joint Hindu family governed by Mitakshara law, shall devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, as the case may be, under this Act and not by survivorship, and coparcenary property shall be deemed to have been divided as if a partition had taken place – Daughter is allotted same share as is allotted to a son – Where deceased parent was a Mitakshara coparcener, such children shall also inherit their share in ancestral property, limited to portion that would have been allotted to their parent upon a notional partition before their death – Family Court’s order shall be modified to reflect this clarification. (Paras 21 and 22)

Result:Appeal dismissed.