JUDGMENT

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. This is an appeal filed by defendant No.1 against a reversing judgment.

2. The judgment passed by the learned District Judge, Deogarh on 16.02.2024 followed by decree in RFA No. 11 of 2023 is under challenge whereby, the judgment passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior

Division, Deogarh in C.S. No. No. 79/ 2021 followed by decree, was confirmed.

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

4. 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 Srimukha Naik with negative declaration that defendant No.1 is not the legally wedded wife of Srimukha Naik with further prayer to direct defendant No.3 to disburse all the pensionary benefits in her favour. Be it noted that said Srimukha Naik died on 25.07.2021, leaving behind the plaintiff and his children one of whom namely, Arati Naik was impleaded as defendant No.2 in the suit. It is alleged that Srimukha Naik was never married to defendant No.1 and as such she is not entitled to family pension.

5. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 contested the suit by filing a joint written statement denying the plaint averments. Defendant No.1 claimed to be first wife of Srimukha Naik and that four children were born out of said wedlock. She also contends that the plaintiff is not the legally wedded wife of Srimukha Naik. She was declared as nominee by her husband at the time of preparation of pension papers. Her husband Srimukha Naik had illicit relationship with the plaintiff. Further, she has received the pensionary benefits from the defendant No.3 bank as per direction of the Accountant-General of Odisha.

6. The Central Bank of India defendant No.3 also appeared and contested the suit by filing a written statement denying the plaint averments. It was inter alia stated that as per the instructions of Treasury Officer, Deogarh, pension has been disbursed in favour of Srimukha Naik and thereafter, to his nominee, defendant No.1.

7. The trial Court framed nine issues and after analysing the oral and documentary evidence on record dismissed the suit. The plaintiff carried the matter in appeal. On re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the First Appellate Court was not inclined to concur with the findings of the trial Court. The appeal was allowed in part by setting aside the impugned judgment and decree and by declaring that the plaintiff is the legally married wife of Srimukha Naik and as such, defendant No.1 is not the legally married wife of Srimukha Naik.

8. Being aggrieved, defendant No.1 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?

9. Heard Ms. S. Jena, learned counsel for the appellant-defendant No.1 and Mr. B.S.Das, learned counsel for plaintiff-respondent No.1.

10. Ms. Jena assails the impugned judgments on the ground that a Family Court having been established constituted for the district of Deogarh, the Courts below lacked jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the dispute. Ms. Jena further submits that the prayer of the plaintiff as laid in the plaint squarely falls within the jurisdiction of the Family Court as per Section-7. Since the Family Court was established at Deogarh during pendency of the suit, the trial Court, or for that matter the First Appellate Court, lacked jurisdiction to continue with the suit/appeal in view of the express bar under Section-8 of the Family Courts Act.

11. Mr. B.S.Das, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff would submit that the plaintiff claimed declaration as regards her status vis-a-vis that of defendant No.1 an