THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 25.02.2020 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. PRINCIPAL FAMILY JUDGE REGARDING JURISDICTION OF FAMILY COURT IN O.S.NO.261/2017, VIDE ANNX-A AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION HOLDING THAT THE SUIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN O.S.NO.261/2017 IS NOT MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, BANGALORE.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 23.03.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

CAV ORDER

The Petitioners, being aggrieved by the Order dated 25.02.2020 passed by the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru in O.S.No.261/2017, have preferred the present Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, primarily challenging the jurisdictional competence of the Family Court to entertain a suit instituted by a third party seeking declaration as to the invalidity of a marriage and legitimacy of the children born there from. The Petitioners also assail the impugned order on the ground that it was passed a day after the death of the original plaintiff, thereby rendering the same non-est in law.

2. The petitioners herein are the defendants before the Family Court, and the respondents herein are the legal heirs of the plaintiff before the Family Court.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before this Court.

4. Smt. Parvathamma (deceased), the original plaintiff, instituted O.S.No.261/2017 before the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, against the present Petitioners seeking the following reliefs:

i) Declaration that Petitioner No.1 is not the legally wedded wife of late J.P. Narayanaswamy and that Petitioners No.2 and 3 are not his children;

ii) Declaration that the marriage solemnized between late J.P. Narayanaswamy and Petitioner No.1 on 15.08.1999 and registered on 27.08.2012 is null and void ab initio;

iii) Consequential reliefs of permanent injunction restraining the Petitioners from claiming any rights in the estate of the deceased and from asserting themselves as his wife and children.

5. The Family Court initially overruled office objections regarding maintainability vide order dated 02.03.2018. This order was challenged by the Petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.23914–23916/2018. By order dated 11.03.2019, this Court set aside the said order and remitted the matter back to the Family Court with a direction to reconsider the issue of jurisdiction afresh in light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kasturi & Ors. v. M. Kasturi (2018) 5 SCC 353 and Samar Kumar Roy v. Jharna Bera (2017) 9 SCC 591.

6. During the pendency of the proceedings, the original plaintiff Smt. Parvathamma passed away on 24.02.2020. Nevertheless, the Family Court proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 25.02.2020, holding that it has jurisdiction to entertain the suit under Section 7(1)(a) and (b) read with the Explanation to the Family Courts Act, 1984. Aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioners have approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

7. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Family Court lacks jurisdiction to try the suit. He contended that the dispute is not a matrimonial dispute between parties to a marriage, but a third-party challenge to the validity of marriage raised after the death of J.P. Narayanaswamy, primarily to determine succession rights to his estate. Strong reliance was placed on Kasturi (supra) and Samar Kumar Roy (supra) to contend that such disputes are in the nature of declaratory suits under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and are maintainable before the Civil Court, and not before the Family Court.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Respondents supported the impugned order. He contended that the suit falls squarely within the purview of Section 7(1)(a) and (b) read with Explanation (b) o