Family Court lacks jurisdiction over third-party claims regarding marital status; remedies must be sought in civil courts.

1. Heard Mr. A. Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S. N. Sarma, learned Senior counsel, appearing for the respondent.

2. The appellant is before this court in this appeal assailing the order dated 17.11.2014, passed by the court of the Principal Judge, Family Court - 1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, in F.C. (Civil) Case No. 628/2012. The respondent herein had approached the Family Court in F.C. (Civil) 628/2012 seeking a declaration that the appellant herein is not the legally married wife of Lakshman Banerjee and, therefore, she is not entitled to make any claim, as legal heir of Lakshman Banerjee, in respect of the properties left by him. Further, a declaration has been sought that the Marriage Certificate No. 252/94 is a void and fraudulently obtained document and, therefore, the same has no binding effect on the plaintiff and others. The consequential relief thereof was also sought in the said petition.

3. The appellant herein was the defendant to the said proceedings, who had appeared and contested the proceedings. In the said proceedings, an application was filed under S.7 of the Family Court Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") contending that the petition before the Family Court is not maintainable as the parties are not husband and wife and, in that light, the petition filed by a third person cannot be entertained by the Family Court.

4. The Family Court, through its order dated 17.11.2014, having considered the said application, was of the opinion that the petition, as filed, would fall under S.7(b) of the Act and, therefore, held that the petition is maintainable. Accordingly, the prayer made in the application bearing Petition No. 829/2014 was rejected. It is in that light the instant appeal is filed by the appellant assailing the order passed by the learned Family Court.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant has taken us through the provision as contained in S.7 of the Act as also the provision as contained in Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code. In that light, it is contended that the jurisdiction of the Family Court as provided under S.7 of the Act is to be exercised only when such dispute arises between the parties to the marriage and, therefore, the proceedings before the Family Court was not maintainable. It is pointed out that even in respect of the very similar relief, as prayed before the learned Family Court, the appropriate course would have been to approach the civil court if the provision as contained in Order XXXIIA of the Civil Procedure Code is kept in view. The learned counsel has sought to rely on the decision of a Division of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Dilip and Another v. Ravi and Another , reported in AIR 2014 RAJASTHAN 89.

6. The learned Senior counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, would seek to sustain the order dated 17.11.2014 passed by the learned Family Court. It is contended by the learned Senior counsel that a perusal of the provision as contained in S.7 of the Act, providing jurisdiction of the Family Court, would indicate that under all other sub-sections, the emphasis is on the expression "parties to a marriage". In that light, it is pointed out that the said expression is conspicuously absent in sub-Section (b) of S.7 and, therefore, the suit filed by the respondent, presently seeking for a declaration relating to validity of marriage, would be maintainable. Learned Senior counsel would also seek to rely on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balram Yadav vs. Fulamaniya Yada , rep