Judgment :- 1. This appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act, 1984, by the defendant in O.S.No.62/93 on the file of Judge, Family Court, Bijapur, is directed against the judgment and decree passed in the said suit. 2. The suit was by a person whom the defendant claimed, believed and asserted to be her husband, but who sought for a declaration, that too, a negative declaration that the defendant is not his legally wedded wife, and for consequential relief, with no part of the pleading indicating any event/development to show that there was some form of the marriage having taken place between the parties. 3. The case of the Plaintiff is that the defendant is his close relative, viz., his sister’s daughter, and out of love and affection for his sister and brother-in-law, he used to visit them regularly. On such occasions they were expressing their desire to give their daughter in marriage to the plaintiff, but his reaction was one of stubborn refusal, and is said to have indicated to the parents of the defendant that he has no intention to marry the plaintiff, notwithstanding the pressure exhibited by all family members and well-wishers. Further case of the plaintiff is that he married one Bhagyashri @ Bharati, daughter of Mahadevappa and the marriage was performed on 12.12.1990 at Ambabhavani Temple at Tulajapur, Maharashtra, in accordance with the customs of the community and at that time, neither the defendant not her parents were present. 4. It is the further version of the plaintiff that after his marriage with Bhagyashri @ Bharati, he had a happy married life and they had a daughter also from the wedlock. It is also his case that the parents of the defendant were very disturbed with this development as their wish was not materialized, and on 26.12.1990 they came to his house and pressurized him not only to marry the defendant, but also to divorce Bhagyashri @ Bharati. The plaintiff was shocked at the unruly behaviour of the parents of the defendant who, as a retaliatory measure, had filed a false and frivolous maintenance case against him under Section 125, Cr.P.C. which was registered as Criminal Misc.276/90 on the file of JMFC Court, Bijapur. 6. The plaintiff was shocked at the unruly behaviour of the parents of the defendant who, as a retaliatory measure, had filed a false and frivolous maintenance case against him under Section 125, Cr.P.C. which was registered as Criminal Misc.276/90 on the file of JMFC Court, Bijapur. 6. It is these developments which according to the plaintiff, gave cause for the plaintiff to approach the court seeking for a declaration and consequential relief as under: a) A decree declaring that the defendant is not the legally wedded wife of the plaintiff; b) A consequential relief of permanent injunction be passed against the defendant restraining her from using the name of the plaintiff as husband in any public place, office records, etc.; c) Cost of the Suit be awarded to the plaintiff from the defendant; and d) Plaintiff may be allowed to amend the plaint as and when necessary. 7. On issue of notice, the defendant entered appearance through a counsel and filed written statement denying the averments and while admitted that the plaintiff is a permanent resident of Bijapur, denied all other contents of the plaint. The defendant, on her part, pleaded that she had been married to the plaintiff in the year 1986 at Eshwaralinga Temple at Bijapur, that they had a married life for a very short time of six months and whereafter the plaintiff started ill-treating the defendant and out of greed, made illegal demands for excess dowry, gold, etc. Payment of Rs.4,000/-and two tolas of gold during marriage did not satisfy the plaintiff and at the behest of one Basappa, he started harassing the defendant for more money and more gifts which the defendant and her parents could not cope with. The plaintiff harassed and ill-treated her, did not provide her food and left her to fend for herself in the rented house they had taken after marriage and he (plaintiff) started living with his brother, Basappa. 8. The defendant further pleaded that the plaintiff has suppressed all these facts before the court and has come up with a story only to please his second wife whom he married in 1990. She claimed that there was no cause of action for the suit and that the suit itself was not maintainable and also pleaded for dismissal on account of the delay. 9. She claimed that there was no cause of action for the suit and that the suit itself was not maintainable and also pleaded for dismissal on account of the delay. 9. While such are the pleadings, we find very strangely that the learned judge of the trial court had not cared to frame relevant issues, but have very conveniently shirked his duty and responsibility on the premise that his predecessor had listed the matter for evidence and it is not known as to whether any effort was made by the learned trial Judge to frame any issues at all at any point of time. 10. The matter being before the Family Court in the nature of original suit, and Section 10 of the Family Courts Act expressly spelling that the procedure to be followed by the Family Court should be in terms of the Code of Civil Procedure and if so, framing of issues in a suit which is a very important stage for any suit to be tried being overlooked, is a glaring deficiency in the judgment of the trial court. 11. The learned judge in the course of judgment proceeded to formulate issues which are as under: 1) Whether the plaintiff has shown that the defendant is not his wife? 2) Whether the defendant has shown that she is the legally wedded wife of the plaintiff? 3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs claimed? and has answered point no.(1) in the affirmative and point no.(2) against the defendant and consequently decreed the suit in terms of the prayer. 12. It appears the plaintiff got himself examined as PW1, his brother, Basappa Sidraya Kolli as PW2, and laid claim through PW3 – Bhagyashri and one Noorahamed Ratanasha Makanadr as PW4. On behalf of the defendant, the defendant deposed as DW1, another brother of the defendant, Shrishaila Sidraya Kolli, as DW2, Parvati Siddappa Halasangi, as DW3 and mother of plaintiff namely Shavantravva Sidraya Kolli as DW4. DW3 stated that she had witnessed the marriage of the defendant with the plaintiff in the year 1986 and DW4, very mother of the plaintiff – DW4, deposed that she had witnessed the said marriage. 13. DW3 stated that she had witnessed the marriage of the defendant with the plaintiff in the year 1986 and DW4, very mother of the plaintiff – DW4, deposed that she had witnessed the said marriage. 13. In spite of such strong and unshakable evidence supporting the case of the defendant, the learned judge very strangely has evaluated such evidence in a perfunctory manner and has virtually recorded a perverse finding to conclude that the marriage of the plaintiff never took place with the defendant and, on the other hand, the plaintiff had married the other lady, viz., Bhagyashri @ Bharati in the year 1990 and in this view, decreed the suit. 14. It is aggrieved by this judgment and decree the present appeal is filed raising several grounds. 15. We have heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar Patil, learned counsel for the appellant, perused the record, looked into the judgment and bestowed our anxious concern to the innumerable questions of law that arise in this appeal. 16. It appears the plaintiff in the suit who is the respondent in this appeal, died somewhere during 2002 and though this court did express a doubt about the further survival of the appeal in view of this development, and at the request of the learned counsel for the appellant, adjourned the matter by two weeks to examine this position as per the order dated 18.7.2002 which reads as under: MFSJ/NKPJ: 18.7.2002 Appellant’s counsel states that his client has been informed that the respondent has passed away recently and consequently, no purpose will be served by resorting to paper publication. Therefore, he has also requested for two weeks time for purpose of considering whether this appeal survives and if it survives what steps that the appellant has to take. To be re-listed for further order after three weeks. Anyhow, later the appellant had taken steps to bring on record the legal heirs and that one legal heir, i.e. R-1(a) mother of the respondent having been served and remained unrepresented, and steps for effecting service on the other legal heir-R-1(b), had taken out paper publication in Vijaya Karnataka Kannada daily newspaper on 19.3.2004, and a copy of this is also filed in the register along with a memo dated 27.3.2004. 17. 17. Since the paper publication had been taken, it appears it was characterized as defective by the registry and further opportunity having been given to the appellant to take fresh steps in terms of the order dated 3.2.2006 and notwithstanding these orders, this court by mistake having insisted on yet another publication in respect of R-1(b), and this mistake having continued further, a peremptory order was passed on 2.9.2008, observing that if necessary steps as indicated earlier within two weeks are not taken, the appeal shall stand dismissed as against unserved R-1(b). 18. In the light of the position stated above and as noticed in the order sheet, we find it was an unnecessary order and hold that the appeal has very much remained alive to see this day as against R-1(a) and R-1(b). This aspect of the matter gains importance with reference to the view that we take on various questions of law that arise. 19. Firstly, we find that a suit of this nature was not even tenable before the Family Court for the simple reason that the subject matter of the Family Court insofar as jurisdictional aspect is concerned, it is determined in terms of Section 7 of the Family Courts Act which is as under: “7. Jurisdiction – (1) Subject to the other provisions of his 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 subordinate civil court for the area to which the jurisdiction of the Family Court extends. Explanation – The Suits and proceedings referred to in this sub-section 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 a 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.” Inspite of best efforts to rope in the relief sought for by the plaintiff within the meaning of any one of the clauses {a} to {g} to the explanation of sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Act, we find that the relief in the nature of negative declaration in respect of a marriage that is never said to have taken place nor performed in any manner, either legally or not so legally, being the plea in the plaint, there is no plea to support the cause of action, nor cause of action indicated in the plaint to confer jurisdiction on the Family Court, the Family Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain a suit of this nature, and therefore, the judgment and decree of the Family Court is not sustainable in law, being a nullity. 20. In any view, this judgment is not sustainable in law. 20. In any view, this judgment is not sustainable in law. We find even on the merits of the case also, that the judgment is not tenable, as the learned trial judge had not even taken care to frame relevant issues and on the available evidence on record, the suit could not have been decreed at all. The findings in favour of the plaintiff when the evidence on record was heavily loaded against the version of the plaintiff and fully supported the defendant’s case, the finding is nothing short of a perverse finding, and even if the suit was tenable, the judgment and decree based on such a perverse finding only deserves to be set aside. 20. We express so having perused the evidence of DW1 to DW4 who have all supported the case of the defendant in chorus and have said that they had witnessed the marriage between the parties and being such close relatives, in fact, DW4 – mother of the plaintiff herself having categorically and assertively deposed before the court that her son had married the defendant, there was no way the court could have come to the contrary conclusion to declare that the defendant is not the legally wedded wife of the plaintiff. 21. In fact, we find a relief of this nature is even beyond the scope of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act as a negative declaratory relief to declare that the marriage had never taken place, is not one that can come within scope of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. 22. Accordingly, when it is a relief that cannot be granted in law, there is no way the civil court can grant a declaratory relief. 23. For this reason also, the appeal has to be allowed. We find good reasons to allow this appeal and set aside the judgment and decree. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the trial court is set aside and the suit stands dismissed.