The Patna High Court has ruled that the bar under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, regarding declaratory suits does not apply to matrimonial proceedings governed by the Family Courts Act, 1984. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Justice Anshuman, held that Section 20 of the Family Courts Act has an overriding effect on inconsistent provisions of other laws.
The Court dismissed the Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the husband (the Appellant), upholding the Family Court’s decree which declared his second marriage null and void.
Background of the Case
The appeal (Miscellaneous Appeal No. 587 of 2022) arose from a judgment and decree dated September 29, 2022, and October 14, 2022, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Begusarai, in Matrimonial Case No. 176 of 2010.
The Respondent (the first wife) had filed the matrimonial case seeking a declaration that the marriage between the Appellant and the second respondent was null and void. The Family Court allowed the petition, declaring the second marriage void. The Appellant challenged this decision in the High Court under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
Arguments of the Parties
The Appellant’s counsel raised two primary grounds for challenging the lower court’s decision:
- Appreciation of Evidence: It was submitted that the Family Court failed to appreciate the evidence of PW 3, the father of the Respondent, who allegedly deposed in favor of the Appellant.
- Bar under Specific Relief Act: The counsel contended that the suit was barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. It was argued that the Respondent sought a mere declaration of the marriage’s nullity without seeking any further relief, such as the restoration of conjugal rights. The Appellant asserted that under the proviso to Section 34, a court cannot make a declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief, omits to do so.
The counsels for the Respondents supported the maintainability of the suit and the lower court’s judgment.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Division Bench formulated two points for determination: whether the non-consideration of PW 3’s evidence was fatal to the judgment, and whether Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act created a bar on the declaratory suit filed before the Family Court.
On Appreciation of Evidence Regarding the first issue, the Court observed that the Family Court had reached its findings based on a detailed discussion of various exhibits, including photographs and documents from the Mediation Centre.
Justice Dr. Anshuman, authoring the judgment, stated:
“Admittedly, the present proceeding is a civil proceeding and in civil proceeding the standard of proof is the preponderance of probability.”
The Court held that since the Principal Judge decided the suit on the basis of preponderance of probability, “minor contradiction in oral evidence shall not help the present appellant in any manner.”
On Applicability of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act The Court extensively analyzed the conflict between the Specific Relief Act and the Family Courts Act. The Bench examined Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, which restricts courts from granting a mere declaration if the plaintiff omits to seek further available relief.
However, the Court juxtaposed this with Section 20 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, which states:
“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.”
The Bench reasoned that since the Specific Relief Act was enacted in 1963 and the Family Courts Act in 1984, the latter prevails. The Court observed:
“The principle laid down under the Specific Relief Act, 1963 shall not be applicable upon the suits filed under the Family Courts Act, 1984, due to Section 20 of the Family Courts Act, 1984… due to overriding effect of Section 20 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 non-demand of any such relief shall not create any shadow on the judgment and decree passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court.”
The Court clarified that even if the applicant did not demand relief regarding restitution of conjugal rights, the suit for declaration of the validity of marriage remains maintainable under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act.
Decision
The High Court concluded that there was no illegality in the Family Court’s judgment. The Bench held that the “non-demand of any such relief [restitution of conjugal rights] shall not create any shadow on the judgment and decree.”
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Miscellaneous Appeal and affirmed the decree declaring the marriage between the Appellant and the second respondent null and void.
