Madras High Court
R.Sheela vs Maragatham on 26 September, 2025
CRP.(PD)No.4310 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
CRP.No.4310 of 2025
and CMP.No.22120 of 2025
1.R.Sheela
2.R.Priya ... Petitioners / Defendants 1 and 2
vs.
1.Maragatham
2.Anju.R,
3.Akash.R,
4.Arjun. R, ... Respondents 1 to 4 / Plaintiffs
5.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
CMDA Building,
E&C Market Road,
Koyambedu, Chennai-600 107.
6.The Executive Engineer / Administrative Officer,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Besant Nagar Division,
No.63, Dr.Muthulakshmi Road,
Venkata Rathinam Nagar,
Adyar, Chennai-6000 020. ... Respondents / Defendants 3 & 4
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 01:35:49 pm )
CRP.(PD)No.4310 of 2025
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, to set aside the order dated 28.07.2025 passed in I.A.No.3 of 2024 in
O.S.No.6025 of 2025 by the XXIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.L.Dhamodharan
For Respondent : Mr.K.Indupriya,
Caveator for R1 to R4
ORDER
The unnsuccessful defendants 1 and 2 have preferred this Civil Revision
Petition. One Maragatham, R.Anju, R.Akash and R.Arjun have filed the Suit in
O.S.No.6025 of 2024 on the file of the XXIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court,
Chennai, seeking for Declaration declaring that the 1st plaintiff / Maragatham is
the legally wedded wife of late P.Rajasekaran and that the 1st plaintiff and the
plaintiffs 2 to 4, who are the children born to the 1st plaintiff, as the legal heirs of
late P.Rajasekaran and consequently, directing the 1st defendant / R.Sheela to
receive the terminal benefits of late P.Rajasekaran from the defendants 3 and 4.
Meanwhile, the defendants 1 and 2 have filed application in I.A.No.3/2024 in
O.S.No.6025 of 2024 under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC to reject the plaint on the
ground that the Suit for declaration and consequential relief in respect of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 01:35:49 pm )
matrimonial dispute as per proviso under Section 8 of the Family Court Act, the
jurisdiction of the Civil Court is ousted. The plaintiffs filed their objections to the
said application. Upon hearing the arguments advanced on either side, the Court
below, vide order dated 28.07.2025 has dismissed the application on the ground
that the dispute between the parties can be resolved on the basis of evidence to be
tendered by the parties and the Court below having a concurrent jurisdiction can
entertain the Suit and it is not barred under Section 8 of the Family Courts Act.
Aggrieved over the same, the defendants 1 and 2 have filed the present Civil
Revision Petition.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment in Balram Yadav v. Fulmaniya Yadav
[2016 Supreme (SC) 320] held that Declaration as to the validity of both marriage
and matrimonial status of a person is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Family Court, vide Section 8 of the Family Courts Act. The Court below failed to
take note that there is a statutory bar under Section 8 of the Family Courts Act and
thereby dismissal of the application filed for rejection of the plaint is not proper.
The Court below failed to note that the relief sought for by the plaintiff pertains to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 01:35:49 pm )
declaration, declaring that 1st plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of late
P.Rajasekaran and the same has to be decided only by the Family Court and not by
the Civil Court. The Family Court enacted by the Parliament has over-riding
effect in respect of Civil Court and thereby dismissal of the application by the
Trial Court is not proper. The learned counsel for the petitioners, to strengthen
his contentions, has relied upon the judgment in Balram Yadav case (supra) and
would submit that the aforesaid judgment has been consistently followed by most
of the High Courts. The High Court of Orissa in the decision in Kshirbati @
Kharabati Naik v. Premsila Naik & Anr. [RSA No.122 of 2024 dated
04.03.2025] has followed the judgment in Balram Yadav case (supra) wherein it
was held that the proceeding for declaration as to the validity of both marriage and
status of a person is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court. In yet
another judgment, the High Court of Karnataka in Arjun v. Sushilabai and others
[Misc. First Appeal No.202179 of 2023 (FC) dated 27.01.2025] has followed the
judgment in Balram Yadav case (supra). The learned counsel for the petitioner,
in support of his contentions, has also relied on the following judgments
(i) S.Krishnamurthy v. Poubalane & Others [2013-3-L.W.189].
(ii) Shyamal Mallick, Son of late Santosh Mallick v. Mamta Das [W.P.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 01:35:49 pm )
227 No.31 of 2024 dated 08.04.2024 – decision of the High Court of
Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur]
(iii) Bhojraj Srinivas v. Bhojraj Divya [decision of the Telangana High
Court in CCCA No.120 of 2022 dated 03.04.2023].
3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit
that the Suit is not filed for dissolution of marriage and the Suit is filed only for
declaration of legal status under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. The Suit, is
not, in substance, a petition for dissolution of marriage under either the Special
Marriage Act, 1954 or the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Suit is filed seeking for
declaration of a legal character. The remedies provided and the Scheme of the
Hindu Marriage Act and of the Special Marriage Act show that the statute creates
special rights or liabilities and provides for determination of rights relating to
marriage. The Acts do not lay down that all questions relating to the rights and
liabilities shall be determined only by the Tribunals which are constituted under
the said Act. Section 8(a) of the Family Courts Act excludes the Civil Court's
jurisdiction in respect of a suit or proceeding which is between the parties and
filed under the Hindu Marriage Act or Special Marriage Act, where the suit is to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 01:35:49 pm )
annul or dissolve a marriage, or is for restitution of conjugal rights or judicial
separation and it does not create any bar or oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court,
if a Suit is filed for a declaration as to the legal character of a marriage. The suit
not being covered under the provisions of Section 7, it cannot be said to be barred
under Section 8 for the Civil Courts to exercise their jurisdiction. The suit or
proceeding referred to in Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act must be between
the husband and wife and when the suit is not between the husband and wife, then
the Family Court will not have any exclusive jurisdiction. To strengthen her
contention, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the following
judgments
(i) S.Krishnamurthy v. Poubalane & Ors. [2013 (3) LW 189]
(ii)Samar Kumar Roy v. Jharna Bera [2017 (9) SCC 591]
(iii) R.Kasthuri and Others v. M.Kasthuri and Others [(2018) 5 SCC 353]
(iv) C.Raja v. M.Sridevi @ Kalpana [2023 (4) CTC 705]
(v) Vijayalakshmy v. P.K.Jayashree & Anr. [2018 SCC Online Ker 23326]
(vi) Hary Jot Singh v. Manpreet Kaur [(2019) SCC Online Del 11716]
(vii) K.Annammal v. Pushpa 7 Ors. [S.A.No.1315 of 2007 dated
14.07.2021]
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 01:35:49 pm )
(viii) Usha @ Anjalakshmi v. The State, District Land Surveyor
[S.A.No.178 of 2025 dated 07.03.2025]
(ix) Devakiammal v. Vasantha Kumari & Anr. [A.S.No.450 of 2018 dated
13.02.2020]
(x) Union of India v. Kursheed Unnissa & Ors. [S.A.No.1039 of 2009
dated 27.09.2021]
(xi) Central bank of India & Anr. v. Prabha Jain & Ors. [2025 SCC
Online SC 121].
4. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the entire materials
available on record.
5. It is seen from the records that the Suit has been filed in O.S.No.6025 of
2024 on the file of the XXIII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, seeking the
following reliefs:
(a) For declaration declaring that the 1st plaintiff is the legally
wedded wife of the late P.Rajasekaran and that the 1st plaintiff and
plaintiffs 2 to 4 who are the children born to 1st plaintiff and the Late
Rajasekar as per legal heirs of Late P.Rajasekaran as the legal heirs
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 01:35:49 pm )
of Late P.Rajasekara, consequently
(b) For direction directing the 1st defendant to receive the
terminal benefits of Late P.Rajasekaran from the 3rd and 4th
defendants and consequently pay the same to the plaintiffs herein.
(or)
Alternatively, for direction directing the plaintiff to receive the
terminal benefits of Late P.Rajasekaran from the 3rd and 4th
defendants
(c) Cost of the suit;
(d) pass such further orders as this Court may deem fit and
proper in the circumstances of the case.
6. It is relevant to refer to Sections 7 & 8 of the Family Courts Act, 1984,
which reads hereunder:
S.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 sub-section
are suits and proceedings of the following nature, namely:—
(a) a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage for a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 01:35:49 pm )
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
circumstance 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.
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
sub-section (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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 01:35:49 pm )
any jurisdiction or powers 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 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.
7. At this juncture, it is also relevant to cite the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in [R.Kasthuri and others v.M.Kasthuri and others reported in
(2018) 5 SCC 353] wherein it was held as under:
"5.The objects and reasons behind the enactment of the Act
which is reproduced herein below would suggest that the reason for
constitution of family courts is for settlement of family disputes, if
possible, by pre-litigation proceedings. If the dispute cannot be settled
the same has to be adjudicated by adoption of a process which is
different from what is adopted in ordinary civil proceedings:
“Statement of objects and reasons:
Several associations of women, other organisations and
individuals have urged, from time to time, that Family Courts be set up
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 01:35:49 pm )
for the settlement of family disputes, where emphasis should be laid on
conciliation and achieving socially desirable results and adherence to
rigid rules of procedure and evidence should be eliminated. The Law
Commission in its 59th report (1974) had also stressed that in dealing
with disputes concerning the family the court ought to adopt an
approach radically different from that adopted in ordinary civil
proceedings and that it should make reasonable efforts at settlement
before the commencement of the trial. The Code of Civil Procedure
was amended in 1976 to provide for a special procedure to be adopted
in suits or proceedings relating to matters concerning the family.
However, not much use has been made by the courts in adopting this
conciliatory procedure and the courts continue to deal with family
disputes in the same manner as other civil matters and the same
adversary approach prevails. The need was, therefore, felt, in the public
interest, to establish Family Courts for speedy settlement of family
disputes.”
6. Sections 13, 14 and 15 of the Act spell out a special
procedure. The other provisions of the Act i.e. Section 4(4) would
indicate that a major objective behind the enactment of the Act is to
have a specialized body to preserve and save the institution of
marriage.
7. In the present case, there is no family dispute between the
plaintiffs and the defendants. The dispute arose after the demise of
Gunaseelan to whom both the plaintiff No.1 and the defendant No.1
claim to be married. The other plaintiffs and defendant No.2 are the
children claimed to be born out of the respective marriages.
8. The above would indicate that the dispute between the
parties is purely a civil dispute and has no bearing on any dispute
within a family which needs to be resolved by a special procedure as
provided under the Act. No issue with regard to the institution of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 01:35:49 pm )
marriage and the need to preserve the same also arises in the present
case. That apart, the dispute between the parties can only be resolved
on the basis of evidence to be tendered by the parties, admissibility of
which has to be adjudged within the four corners of the provisions of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In such a proceeding it would be clearly
wrong to deprive the parties of the benefit of the services of counsels."
(emphasis supplied).
8. It is seen from the records that there is no family dispute between the
plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2. The dispute arose after the demise of late
Rajasekaran, to whom both the 1st plaintiff and the 1st defendant claimed to be
married. Other plaintiffs and the defendants 2 and 3 are children claimed to be
born from the respective marriages. The above would indicate that the dispute
between the parties is purely a civil dispute and has no bearing on any dispute
within a family which needs to be resolved by a special procedure as provided
under the Act. [R.Kasthuri's case (supra)].
9. It is also relevant to refer Order VII Rule 11 CPC, which is extracted
hereunder:
Order VII Rule 11. Rejection of plaint.— The plaint shall be
rejected in the following cases:—
(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 01:35:49 pm )
(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on
being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be
fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is
returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being
required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time
to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be
barred by any law;
[(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;]
[(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of
rule 9:]
Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of
the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be
extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that
the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from
correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the
case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to
extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.
10. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent herein, in the instant case there is no dispute with regard to institution
of marriage and there is a dispute between the parties in a civil nature for
declaration of rights of legally wedded wife. The decision in R.Kasthuri's case
(supra) squarely applies to the facts of the present case. In the case on hand, the
suit not being covered under the provisions of Section 7 of the Family Courts Act,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 01:35:49 pm )
it cannot be said to be barred under Section 8 of the said Act for the Civil Courts
to exercise their jurisdiction. In the light of the reasons assigned above, this Civil
Revision Petition lacks merit and deserves dismissal.
11. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed, confirming
the order of the XXIII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai dated 28.07.2025 made
in I.A.No.3 of 2024 in O.S.No.6025 of 2024. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
26.09.2025
Intex : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Jvm
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
Jvm
To
XXIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 01:35:49 pm )
26.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 01:35:49 pm )
