Meetu vs Rajesh Kumar And Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 5100 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Meetu vs Rajesh Kumar And Ors on 13 November, 2025

Author: Alka Sarin

Bench: Alka Sarin

                            222
                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                                      CHANDIGARH

                                                                           FAO-6974-2011 (O&M)
                                                                           Date of Decision : 13.11.2025


                            Meetu                                                            ... Appellant(s)
                                                                 Versus
                            Rajesh Kumar & Ors                                             ... Respondent(s)


                            CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN


                            Present :      Ms. Ritu Punj, Advocate for the appellants.

                                           Mr. Tajender Joshi, Advocate for respondent No.4.

                                           Mr. B.S. Mamli, Advocate for respondent Nos.5 and 6.



                            ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

CM-25920-CII-2019

1. This is an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 for staying the findings of the learned Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal').

2. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that instead of

addressing the arguments on the present application, the main appeal may be

heard.

3. In view of the above, the present application is allowed. With the

consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the main appeal is taken on

Board today itself.

FAO-6974-2011

4. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellant

authenticity of this judgment/order.

aggrieved by the impugned award dated 24.08.2011 passed by the Tribunal

whereby her claim petition has been dismissed on the ground that she has not

been proved to be legally wedded wife of the deceased - Rajnish Mohan.

5. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellant would contend that

the issue whether the claimant-appellant is the legally wedded wife of the

deceased - Rajnish Mohan could not have been decided by the Tribunal in the

present proceedings and the Tribunal ought to have relegated the claimant-

appellant to the Civil Court for getting the issue decided.

6. Per contra learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 6 have

contended that the Tribunal has already recorded a finding that the claimant-

appellant is not the legally wedded wife of the deceased - Rajnish Mohan.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

8. In the present case the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition

on the basis of finding on Issue No.2 - "Whether petitioner is legally wedded

wife of deceased Rajnish Mohan and petitioner as well as proforma

respondents no.5 & 6 are entitled to receive compensation amount? ..." by

holding that the claimant-appellant could not prove herself to be the legal heir

of deceased - Rajnish Mohan. This disputed issue was qua the matrimonial

status of the claimant-appellant with the deceased and the same was not an

issue which could have been decided by the Tribunal. Hon'ble Supreme Court

in the case of Balram Yadav Vs. Fulmaniya Yadav [2016 (3) RCR (Civil)

694] has held as under:

"6. Section 20 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 provides for

overriding effect of the Act on other laws or instruments

having the effect of law. The said Section reads as

follows:-

authenticity of this judgment/order.

"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."

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

Courts Act, 1984, has an overriding effect on other laws."

9. It was only after a declaration as regards the matrimonial

status/validity of marriage of the claimant-appellant with the deceased is

granted that the Tribunal could have determined her claim for compensation.

In view thereof, the impugned award dismissing the claim petition is upheld

with a clarification that the claimant-appellant would be at liberty to get her

matrimonial status with the deceased decided by the appropriate jurisdictional

authenticity of this judgment/order.

forum and any observation made herein or in the impugned award shall have

no bearing in the decision thereof.

10. Disposed off accordingly. Pending applications, if any, also

stand disposed off.

                              13.11.2025                                          ( ALKA SARIN )
                              Yogesh Sharma                                           JUDGE

NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/N

authenticity of this judgment/order.