Family Courts Are Governed By General Principles Of Delay & Laches, Not By Strict Provisions Of Limitation Act: Orissa HC

The Orissa High Court has ruled that the Family Courts are not governed by rigid limitation periods prescribed under the Limitation Act, 1963, rather the general principles of delay and laches apply to their adjudications.

The Division Bench of Justice Bibhu Prasad Routray and Justice Chittaranjan Dash further held that disputes relating to 'marital status' of parties is a 'continuing cause of action' and therefore, no strict limitation period applies to entertain and adjudicate such disputes.

“A party seeking to establish or refute marital status cannot be barred from seeking such a declaration merely because a certain period has elapsed, particularly when the dispute has long-standing consequences for inheritance, legitimacy, and personal law rights. The concept of “continuing cause of action” applies in cases involving marital status,” it observed.

Case Background

The respondent filed a civil proceeding before the Family Court, Bhubaneswar, seeking a declaration that she is the legally wedded wife of Late Kailash Chandra Mohanty ('the deceased') and therefore, his rightful legal heir. She claimed that their marriage took place on 05.06.1966 as per Hindu rites and customs and they lived together.

She further alleged that the appellant was merely working with the deceased and had no legitimate marital relationship with him. The Family Court decreed the suit on 29.10.2021, declaring the respondent as the legally wedded wife and legal heir of the deceased, entitling her to inherit his ancestral and self-acquired property.

Aggrieved by the judgment, the appellant filed a matrimonial appeal before the High Court, challenging the decision on the grounds that she was not given a fair opportunity to present her case. The High Court observed that there was reasonable cause for the appellant's non-appearance and held that the Family Court's judgment was passed without affording the appellant proper opportunity to contest the matter.

Consequently, it nullified the judgment dated 29.10.2021 and remitted the matter back to the Family Court, Bhubaneswar, for fresh adjudication. Additionally, considering the advanced age of both the parties, it made an interim arrangement concerning the disputed property and directed that until the final outcome of the case, the usufructs arising from the property would be shared in a 60:40 ratio, with 60% in favour of the respondent and 40% in favour of the appellant.

Thereafter, the Family Court reheard the matter and passed a fresh judgment on 12.12.2023, once again declaring the respondent as the legally wedded wife of the deceased and his legal heir, thereby reaffirming her right to inherit his ancestral and self-acquired properties. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed this matrimonial appeal.

The arguments advanced by the appellant are basically two folds – firstly, the Family Court erred in adjudicating the dispute and passing a favourable judgment in favour of the respondent as it did not have jurisdiction to entertain the plea regarding determination of marital status, which according to the appellant must have been decided by a Civil Court as per Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act.

Secondly, it was contended that the respondent initiated the proceeding before the Family Court after expiry of the limitation period, and she also did not seek condonation of delay nor furnished any justifiable reason for almost five years delay. Therefore, the appellant urged that the proceeding initiated by the respondent should have been binned by the Family Court at the threshold itself.

Determining 'marital status' within exclusive jurisdiction of Family Court

To resolve the dispute regarding the question of jurisdiction, the Court referred to explanation (b) Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 which provides that a suit or proceeding for a declaration as to the validity of a marriage or as to the 'matrimonial status' of any person shall be adjudicated by a Family Court.

Further, Section 8 of the Act reinforces the exclusivity of the Family Court's jurisdiction by expressly barring the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in matters covered under Section 7. Above all, Section 20 says that provisions of the Family Court Act shall have over-riding effect over any other law that may be inconsistent with it.

Reference was also made to the following observations made by the Supreme Court in Balram Yadav v. Fulmaniya Yadav (2016) –

“Under Section 7(1) Explanation (b), a Suit or a proceeding for a declaration as to the validity of both marriage and matrimonial status of a person is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court, since under Section 8, all those jurisdictions covered under Section 7 are excluded from the purview of the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts. In case, 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.”

After perusing the aforementioned provisions along with the precedent, the Court held that there is no room for ambiguity. A suit seeking a declaration of marital status, whether it affirms or denies the existence of a valid marriage, squarely falls within the ambit of the Family Court's jurisdiction.

“Once the Family Court jurisdiction is established over a matter, any attempt to bypass it would undermine the very purpose of establishing Family Courts, which is to provide a specialised forum for resolving family disputes efficiently. In the present case, the core of the matter is a declaration of marital status, which aligns squarely with Section 7(1)(b) of the Family Courts Act,” it added.

It also discarded the appellant's argument that the respondent ought to have approached the Civil Court under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. The Court was of the opinion that the Family Courts Act is a special law enacted to deal with disputes of a matrimonial nature, including the determination of marital status.

“The principle of lex specialis derogat legi generali i.e. meaning special law prevails over general law applies in this context, giving precedence to the Family Courts Act over the general provisions of the Specific Relief Act. Furthermore, the Family Court's jurisdiction is not merely concurrent but exclusive for matters enumerated under Section 7, thereby precluding the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in such cases.”

Family Courts not fettered by rigours of limitation

So far as issue of limitation was concerned, the Court held Article 58 of the Limitation Act prescribes a three-year limitation period for suits seeking a declaration, starting from the date when the right to sue first accrues.

In the present case, the appellant asserted that the cause of action arose on 12.07.2012, i.e. the date of deceased's death, and therefore, the suit filed on 24.07.2017 is barred by limitation. However, the Court said that such a rigid application of Article 58 overlooks certain critical legal principles.

It cited Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act which provides relief in cases where a party has pursued a matter in good faith before a Court that ultimately lacked jurisdiction. In the instant case, as the respondent first approached the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and filed a civil miscellaneous petition against its order before the High Court, she consumed a significant amount of time in the process.

“Therefore, the period spent in prosecuting the earlier suit and the subsequent challenge before the Civil Court ought to be excluded under Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act. This principle has been consistently upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which recognises that parties should not be penalised for diligently pursuing their claims before a forum that ultimately lacks jurisdiction,” the Court said.

Most importantly, the Court read Section 7 of the Family Courts Act with Section 29(3) of the Limitation Act and held that proceedings before the Family Court are not subject to a strict limitation period.

“Section 29(3) of the Limitation Act clarifies that where a special law provides for a different limitation period or excludes the application of the Limitation Act, the special law will prevail. In the absence of a specific limitation period under the Family Courts Act, the general principles of delay and laches apply, rather than the rigid timelines under the Limitation Act.”

Moreover, the Court held that a party seeking to establish or refute marital status cannot be debarred from seeking such a declaration merely because a certain period has elapsed as the concept of “continuing cause of action” applies in such cases. The right of spouse to assert her marital status does not extinguish with time.

“The Respondent's right to assert her status as the legally wedded wife of Late Kailash Chandra Mohanty is not a right that extinguishes over time, as it forms the foundation of her claims over his property and other legal entitlements. As long as the Respondent's status remained contested by the Appellant, the cause of action continued,” it said.

Accordingly, it did not find any fault with the judgment of the Family Court with regard to jurisdiction and period of limitation. Resultantly, the matrimonial appeal was dismissed.

Case Title: Smt. Sandhya Rani Sahoo @ Mohanty v. Smt. Anusaya Mohanty

Case No: MATA No. 04 of 2024

Date of Judgment: April 02, 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Banshidhar Baug, Senior Advocate

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Bibekananda Bhuyan, Senior Advocate; Mr. S.S. Bhuyan, Advocate

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 61

Click Here To Read/Download Order