Suit Seeking Declaration Of Matrimonial Status Is To Be Adjudicated By Family Court: Karnataka High Court

A division bench of Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav and Justice Rajesh Rai K held thus while allowing an appeal filed by Arjun Ranappa Hatgundi who had challenged the order of the family court which returned his plaint seeking a declaration that the respondents are not his wife and children. The court had while doing so observed that the Family Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

The appellant contended that defendant No.1 had married one Bhagavantharaya Kalshetty and defendants Nos.2 and 3 are children born from within the said wedlock between defendant No.1 and Bhagavantharaya.

The said matrimonial relationship between defendant No.1 and Bhagavantharaya came to be dissolved by a decree of consent, following which she started asserting that she had married the plaintiff on 10.10.1987 and defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the children born from the said wedlock.

Relying on the judgment of the High Court in the case of Bhuvaneshwari vs. Revappa @ Ranisiddaramappa Kolli (since deceased) by LRs, 2012 (4) KCCR 2690, the family court had observed that a negative declaration is not permissible.

Findings:

The bench noted that perusal of the prayers made in the petition makes it clear that the suit relates to the legal matrimonial status of the plaintiff and defendant No.1.

Referring to the scope of suits to be entertained by the Family Courts under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act. Then it said, “It is clear on a reading of explanation (b) to Section 7 of the Family Courts Act extracted above that a suit relating to matrimonial status of any person would be a suit falling within the scope of Section 7 of the Family Courts Act.”

Relying on the Apex Court judgment in the case of Balram Yadav vs. Fulmaniya Yadav in Civil Appeal No.4500/2016, wherein it had held that if there is a dispute on the matrimonial status of any person, a declaration in that regard has to be sought only before the Family Court and it would not matter whether it is an affirmative relief or a negative relief.

The court said “Noticing that the suit relates to matrimonial status of defendant No.1 with the plaintiff, the finding of the Family Court is erroneous and is liable to be set aside.”

Accordingly, it allowed the appeal.

Appearance: Advocate Vinayaka Apte for Appellant.

Advocate B.K Hiremath for R1.

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 69

Case Title: Arjun Ranappa Hatgundi AND Sushilabai & Others

Case No: MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.202179 OF 2023

Click Here To Read/Download The Order