Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1458 (AP)

Reddy Anand Rao v. Thota Vani Sujatha

2002-12-13

M.NARAYANA REDDY, R.M.BAPAT

body2002
RAMESH MADHAV BAPAT, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the husband. He had filed O. S. S. R. No. 1693 of 2000 in the Family court at City Civil Court, Hyderabad for dissolution of his marriage with respondent no. 1. ( 2 ) THE facts leading to the filing of this appeal can be briefly narrated as follows: that the appellant and the respondent no. l are Christians by religion, but they were married according to the Hindu Vedic rites in a Hindu temple. According to the averments made by the petitioner herein, that he was forced to marry the respondent no. l. Therefore, he filed O. S. SR. No. 1693 of 2000 for dissolution of his marriage with respondent No. l with a prayer to set aside the Marriage Certificate No. 78 of 1999, issued on 8-9-1999 by the Marriage registrar, Srikakulam and to dissolve the marriage between them. It further appears from the record that when the suit was presented, the office raised the objection stating that when there is a specific provision under the Hindu Marriage Act for declaration that the marriage is null and void in case the marriage was performed forcibly, how the suit is maintainable. The counsel for the petitioner-appellant herein replied in writing stating that when the marriage itself is challenged, the suit is maintainable. The learned Judge heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and held that the suit in Family Court is not maintainable for declaration of marriage between the parties as null and void. It was further observed by the learned Judge "when there is a specific provision under section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act for voidable marriage, wherein a separate clause is provided for the marriages of without consent, the parties have to seek relief under that Act only but not by a suit. Further, the relief sought for in the suit is also not proper". In view of the circumstances, the learned Judge held the suit is not maintainable. Hence, the suit was returned to the petitioner. ( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the said order, the husband-appellant herein filed the present appeal. ( 4 ) THE question that arises for consideration before this Court is, as to whether a suit of this nature is maintainable in Family Court? Hence, the suit was returned to the petitioner. ( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the said order, the husband-appellant herein filed the present appeal. ( 4 ) THE question that arises for consideration before this Court is, as to whether a suit of this nature is maintainable in Family Court? ( 5 ) IT is not in dispute that the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 were Christians by religion. Their marriage was performed according to Hindu Vedic rites at sri Suryanarayana Swamy Vari temple at arasavilli, Srikakulam District. According to the contention of the appellant herein, that he was forced to marry respondent No. l and therefore he was constrained to file the suit for declaration that the so called marriage is null and void. ( 6 ) THE question of jurisdiction has to be decided in this case. Section 7 of the Family courts Act, 1984 confer the jurisdiction on the following subjects to the Family Court. Section 7 of the Act reads as follows: "7. Jurisdiction; (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a Family court shall (a) have and exercise all the jurisdiction exercisable by any district Court or any Subordinate civil Court under any law for the time being in force in respect of suits and proceedings of the nature referred to in the Explanation; and (b) be deemed, for the purposes of exercising such jurisdiction under such law, to be a district Court or, as the case may be, such sub ordinate civil Court for the area to which jurisdiction of the Family Court extends. Explanation: The suits and proceedings referred to in this subsection are suits and proceedings of the following nature namely: (a) a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage for a decree of nullity of marriage (declaring the marriage to be null and void or, as the case may be annulling the marriage) or restitution of conjugal rights or judicial separation or dissolution of marriage; (b) a suit or proceeding for a declaration as to the validity of marriage or as to the matrimonial status of any person; (c) a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage with respect to the property of the parties or of either of them; (d) a suit or proceeding for an order or injunction in circumstances arising out of a marital relationship; (e) a suit or proceeding for a declaration as to the legitimacy of any person; (f) a suit or proceeding for maintenance; (g) a suit or proceeding in relation to the guardianship of the person or the custody of, or access to, any minor. (2) Subject to the other provisions of this act, a Family Court shall also have and exercise (a) the jurisdiction exercisable by a magistrate of the First Class under chapter IX (relating to order for maintenance of wife, children and parents) of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974); and (b) such other jurisdiction as may be conferred on it by any other enactment. ( 7 ) EXPLANATION (a) to Section 7 (1) specifically deals about a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage for a decree of nullity of marriage (declaring the marriage to be null and void or, as the case may be annulling the marriage) or restitution of conjugal rights or judicial separation or dissolution of marriage. This particular sub-section does not speak about any caste or religion and therefore any such dispute arising between the parties to the marriage, whatever the caste or creed, can be brought before the Family Court for getting their rights declared. ( 8 ) WE have a direct ruling of this Court on this point, which is reported in R. Durga prasad v. Union of India in which the learned judge had observed:"we are not impressed by the argument of Mr. ( 8 ) WE have a direct ruling of this Court on this point, which is reported in R. Durga prasad v. Union of India in which the learned judge had observed:"we are not impressed by the argument of Mr. N. V. Ranganadham that the Statement of Objects and reasons refers to settlement of disputes relating to marriage and family affairs and as such, the Family Courts Act, 1984 can be made applicable only to the causes arising out of an admitted marriage and that the dispute regarding annulment of marriage is totally alien to the statement of objects and reasons and Preamble of Family courts Act, 1984 and as such Clause (a) of Explanation to Section 7 of the family Courts Act is ultra vires. It has to be borne in mind that while interpreting the statute, the specific provisions of statute are read and understood and have to be interpreted in consistence with the language and intention of the said legal provisions and if the language and intention of the legal provisions are clear and unambiguous, then, there is no need to take the aid of preamble or Statement of Objects and reasons. Further, in interpretation of Statutes caption given to the Act is of little significance as it is always the express legal provisions which operate and the adjudication has to be made only basing upon the said express provisions of the statute unguided by the nature of the caption of the Act or the Statement of Objects and Reasons or even the Preamble thereto. Merely because in the statement of Objects and Reasons and the Preamble, it is stated that Family courts Act is "an Act to provide for the establishment of the Family Courts with a view to promote conciliation in, and secure speedy settlement of disputes relating to marriage and family affairs and for matters connected therewith", it cannot be construed that the dispute with regard to very existence of marriage cannot be a subject for adjudication by a Family court under the Family Courts Act, 1984. The words ". . . . . . . settlement of disputes relating to marriage. . . . . . . The words ". . . . . . . settlement of disputes relating to marriage. . . . . . . " takes in not only the matters of an admitted marriage, but also a dispute with regard to the very existence of the marriage as the existence or otherwise of a marriage is also a dispute relating to marriage". ( 9 ) CONSIDERING the legal position as well as the above ruling, we are of the considered view that the suit filed by the appellant herein is perfectly maintainable in Family court at Hyderabad. ( 10 ) THEREFORE, we allow the appeal and remand O. S. SR. No. 1693 of 2000 directing the Family Court to register it as a suit and try the suit according to law. The learned judge is directed to dispose of the suit preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.