ORDER : 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 15.12.2023 passed by the learned Family Court, Korba in Civil Suit No. 71-A/2017 in case of (Mamta Das vs. Shyamal Mallick) by which the learned Family Court has rejected the application filed under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC filed by the petitioner regarding maintainability of Civil Suit under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act before the Family Court. 2. Brief facts reflected from the record are that the respondent No1. and 2 have filed a civil suit under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act claiming decree of declaration be granted and plaintiff No.2 be declared as illegitimate daughter with the relationship of plaintiff No.1 and defendant mainly contending that the plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1 are practicing lawyers in the District Court in District Korba. The defendant No.1 has started making physical relationship with plaintiff No1 and when she became pregnant the defendant No.1 forced her for abortion which has compelled her to lodge a complaint before Superintendent of Police Korba and because of thereat she left Korba and started living at Champa where plaintiff No.2 was born. It has also been contended that on the basis of the complaint made by the plaintiff offence under Section 376 IPC has been registered against the defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 has allured her not to lead the evidence in the case so that he will look after the plaintiff No.1 and 2 and give them entire respect. On the basis of his assurance, she has led the evidence in favour of the defendant No.1 and accordingly, the defendant No.1 was acquitted on 12.10.2007. Thereafter, the defendant No.1 stated denying his responsibility and alleging that the plaintiff No.2 was not born from their relationship of plaintiff No.1 and the defendant. 3. It is also contended that when the plaintiff moved an application under Section 125 CrPC for grant of maintenance with regard to plaintiff No.1 and 2, it has been alleged by the defendant that plaintiff No.2 is not his daughter. Accordingly, the application was rejected. This order was assailed before the Court by filing Criminal Revision No. 179 of 2012 and on 04.02.2013 it is still pending for consideration. Accordingly, the application was rejected. This order was assailed before the Court by filing Criminal Revision No. 179 of 2012 and on 04.02.2013 it is still pending for consideration. This court vide order dated 04.12.2013 has observed that revision/petitioner can file a suit for declaration under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act for getting a declaration regarding status of plaintiff No.2 as an illegitimate child of respondent herein but so far as permission for getting DNA test the same cannot be given in this revision petition. 4. It has also been contended that since the matter was pending therefore, the defendant started providing facilities to the plaintiff No.1 but he was not treating the plaintiff No.2 as his daughter. It has also been assured by him that defendant intended to marry his daughter which may create hindrance as such he assured plaintiff No.1 that after marriage of his daughter he will recognize plaintiff No.2 as his daughter but he has not fulfilled his assurance which compelled her to file present suit. 5. The record of the case would demonstrate that the defendant No.1 has also moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC before the learned Family Court on 04.05.2018 which was decided by the learned Family Court on 04.09.2018 by observing that after filing the application filed by the defendant regarding maintainability of the case, the plaintiff has moved an application for amendment and has sought relief of deleting relief No. (b) and (c) of clause 16 of the plaint. The learned Family Court has also recorded its finding that the relief sought in paragraph 16 (a) is within the frame work of law, as such the suit is maintainable. Accordingly, the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and fixed the case for framing of the issues. 6. The said order was challenged before this Court wherein this Court vide order dated 05.10.2018 has directed the Family Court to decide the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC afresh. Learned Family Court while deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has recorded its finding that plaintiff No. 2 through her guardian and mother has sought relief in clause (a) which is within the jurisdiction of Family Court, as such the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was rejected. Learned Family Court while deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has recorded its finding that plaintiff No. 2 through her guardian and mother has sought relief in clause (a) which is within the jurisdiction of Family Court, as such the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was rejected. Thereafter, the defendant moved an application under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC on 25.02.2020 mainly contending that in the plaint in place of Section 7 of Family Court Act, Section 34 of Specific Performance Act has been mentioned therefore, the suit is not tenable before the Family Court, as such the suit should be returned back to the plaintiff for filing before the Court having jurisdiction to decide the suit. 7. The plaintiff has filed reply to the said application mainly contending that as per Section 7 of the Family Court Act the issue relating to the matter enumerated in Section 7 of the Family Court Act can be very well decided by the Family Court and the present suit pertains to the declaration of illegitimate with relationship of plaintiff No 1, and defendant, as such the suit is very much maintainable before the Family Court. 8. Learned Family Court vide its order dated 15.12.2023 has rejected the said application by recording its finding that the family Court vide its order dated 25.06.2019 has rejected the objection regarding filing of the suit before appropriate Court while deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, now the defendant on the same ground raised objection about maintainability of the suit and prayed for returning the suit for filing before appropriate Court having jurisdiction to decide. Accordingly, it has rejected the same. This order is being assailed by the defendant by filing writ petition under Article 227 of the constitution of India. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant would submit that the suit for declaration under Section 34 of the Specific Performance Act is not maintainable before the Family Court, as such learned Family Court has committed illegality and irregularity in rejecting the application filed under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC, thus he would pray for quashing of the impugned order and would submit that the plaintiff be kindly directed to file the suit before the appropriate Court having jurisdiction to decide the same. To substantiate his submission he has referred to the judgment of High Court of Delhi in case of Harjyot Singh Vs. Manpreet Kaur decided on 18.11.2019 in CS (OS) No. 444 of 2019 and would refer to paragraph No 21 and 22 of the said order which read as under:- 21. Mention may be made of Pearl Chesson Vs. Sean Lawrence where, concerned with the maintainability of a civil suit by a wife against the husband and mother-in-law for permanent injunction restraining them from dealing with a flat claimed to be financed by the husband and wife, it was held (i) that the suit was not a proceeding arising out of the Hindu Marriage Act; it was a pure and simple proceeding for declaration under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, seeking to establish a right to property; (ii) the suit did not arise out of or in any way was concerned with any of the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, (iii)though the parties happened to be husband and wife, the suit was in respect of a property which was owned as an individual; and, (iv) such a suit would not be barred. Mention may also be made of H. P. Shobha Vs. Parvathamma 2019 Indlaw KAR 4618 upholding the maintainability of the suit for permanent injunction restraining use of surname. Mention may yet further be made of Vijayalakshmy Vs. P.K. Jayashree AIR 2019 Ker 53 (DB) holding that though adjudication of matrimonial disputes in a congenial atmosphere is a function of the Family Court and a broad and liberal approach is required in determining the jurisdiction of the Family Court, but the same does not mean that the Family Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter not even remotely connected with the marriage and marital relationship; exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Court cannot be readily inferred. Recently, in R. Kasthuri Vs. M. Kasthuri (2018) 5 SCC 353 also, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court over a suit for declaration of the plaintiff no.1 as the legally wedded wife of the deceased and of the plaintiffs no.2 to 4 as the legitimate children of the deceased was upheld, negating the plea of exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court, reasoning that the dispute between the parties was purely a civil dispute and could be resolved vide a civil suit. 22. 22. Seen in this context, the present is a suit by a husband against the wife to restrain the wife from defaming the husband and/or from harassing the husband and interfering in the husband performing his work and for damages therefor, and merely because the parties are married to each other, would not be determinative of the jurisdiction. The injunction and other reliefs sought cannot at all said to be arising out of marital relationship as is the requirement of Explanation (d) to Section 7(1) for a proceeding to fall in the domain of the Family Court. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records. 11. From the above factual matrix, the point to be determined by this Court is whether the Family Court has jurisdiction to declare the illegitimacy of a child who was born from relationship of plaintiff No.1 and the defendant. 12. To decide the issue it is necessary for this Court to consider the object of establishment of Family Courts which has been constituted in pursuance of Family Court Act, 1984. The Family Court Act has been enacted by the Parliament with a view to promote conciliation in and secure settlement of disputes relating to marriage and family affairs and for matter connected therewith. Section 7 of the Family Court Act, define the jurisdiction of Family Court to decide the issues as enumerated in Section 7 of the Act. Sections 7 and 8 of the Family Court Act, 1984 reads as under:- Section 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 subordinate civil court for the area to which the 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 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. Section-8. Section-8. Exclusion of jurisdiction and pending proceedings.- Where a Family Court has been established for any area, (a) no district court or any subordinate civil court referred to in subsection (1) of section 7 shall, in relation to such area, have or exercise any jurisdiction in respect of any suit or proceeding of the nature referred to in the Explanation to that sub-section; (b) no magistrate shall, in relation to such area, have or exercise any jurisdiction or power under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974); (c) every suit or proceeding of the nature referred to in the Explanation to sub-section (1) of section 7 and every proceeding under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),- (i) which is pending immediately before the establishment of such Family Court before any district court or subordinate court referred to in that sub-section or, as the case may be, before any magistrate under the said Code; and (ii) which would have been required to be instituted or taken before or by such Family Court if, before the date on which such suit or proceeding was instituted or taken, this Act had come into force and such Family Court had been established, shall stand transferred to such Family Court on the date on which it is established. And Section 20. Act to have overriding effect.- The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. 13. From the above stated legal provisons of the Family Courts Act and also considering the object of the establishment of the Family Courts Act, it is quite vivid, that in case there is dispute on the matrimonial status of any person a declaration in that regard has to be sought only before the Family Court. Section 20 of the Act, 1984 also provides that the provisions of this Act shall have overrriding effect and Section 8 of the Act also provides exclusion of jurisdiction which has been enumerated in Section 7 of the Act as well as proceedings under Chapter 11 of the CrPC. Section 20 of the Act, 1984 also provides that the provisions of this Act shall have overrriding effect and Section 8 of the Act also provides exclusion of jurisdiction which has been enumerated in Section 7 of the Act as well as proceedings under Chapter 11 of the CrPC. In the present facts of the case, the plaintiff is claiming illegitimacy of a child whether it is affirmative relief or negative relief what is important, is the declaration regarding the matrimonial status. Thus learned Family Court has not committed any illegality in rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC. This issue has come up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balram Yadav vs. Fulmaniya Yadav reported in 2016 (13) SCC 308 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 7 to 8 has held as under:- 7. 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. It makes no difference as to whether it is an affirmative relief or a negative relief. What is important is the declaration regarding the matrimonial status. Section 20 also endorses the view which we have taken, since the Family Court Act, 1984 has an overriding effect on other laws. 8. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. The matter is remitted to the High Court to be decided on merits. We request the High Court to hear the appeal afresh and dispose it of expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months. 14. Considering the above stated factual position and particularly the relief sought by the plaintiff, it is quite vivid, that it falls within the jurisdiction of the Family Court as the plaintiff in paragraph 16 (a) has sought for declaration that plaintiff No.2 be declared as illegitimate child of plaintiff No.1 and defendant. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed.