Family Courts Are Governed By General Principles Of Delay & Laches, Not By Strict Provisions Of Limitation Act: Orissa HC

The Orissa High Court has ruled that the Family Courts are not governed by rigid limitation periods prescribed under the Limitation Act, 1963, rather the general principles of delay and laches apply to their adjudications.The Division Bench of Justice Bibhu Prasad Routray and Justice Chittaranjan Dash further held that disputes relating to 'marital status' of parties is a 'continuing cause of action' and therefore, no strict limitation period applies to entertain and adjudicate such disputes.“A party seeking to establish or refute marital status cannot be barred from seeking such a declaration merely because a certain period has elapsed, particularly when the dispute has long-standing consequences for inheritance, legitimacy, and personal law rights. The concept of “continuing cause of action” applies in cases involving marital status,” it observed.Case BackgroundThe respondent filed a civil proceeding before the Family Court, Bhubaneswar, seeking a declaration that she is the legally wedded wife of Late Kailash Chandra Mohanty ('the deceased') and therefore, his rightful legal heir. She claimed that their marriage took place on 05.06.1966 as per Hindu rites and customs and they lived together.She further alleged that the appellant was merely working with the deceased and had no legitimate marital relationship with him. The Family Court decreed the suit on 29.10.2021, declaring the respondent as the legally wedded wife and legal heir of the deceased, entitling her to inherit his ancestral and self-acquired property. Aggrieved by the judgment, the appellant filed a matrimonial appeal before the High Court, challenging the decision on the grounds that she was not given a fair opportunity to present her case. The High Court observed that there was reasonable cause for the appellant's non-appearance and held that the Family Court's judgment was passed without affording the appellant proper opportunity to contest the matter.Consequently, it nullified the judgment dated 29.10.2021 and remitted the matter back to the Family Court, Bhubaneswar, for fresh adjudication. Additionally, considering the advanced age of both the parties, it made an interim arrangement concerning the disputed property and directed that until the final outcome of the case, the usufructs arising from the property would be shared in a 60:40 ratio, with 60% in favour of the respondent and 40% in favour of the appellant.Thereafter, the Family Court reheard the matter and passed a fresh judgment on 12.12.2023, once again declaring the respondent as the legally wedded wife of the deceased and his legal heir, thereby reaffirming her right to inherit his ancestral and self-acquired properties. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed this matrimonial appeal.The arguments advanced by the appellant are basically two folds – firstly, the Family Court erred in adjudicating the dispute and passing a favourable judgment in favour of the respondent as it did not have jurisdiction to entertain the plea regarding determination of marital status, which according to the appellant must have been decided by a Civil Court as per Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act.Secondly, it was contended that the respondent initiated the proceeding before the Family Court after expiry of the limitation period, and she also did not seek condonation of delay nor furnished any justifiable reason for almost five years delay. Therefore, the appellant urged that the proceeding initiated by the respondent should have been binned by the Family Court at the threshold itself.Determining 'marital status' within exclusive jurisdiction of Family CourtTo resolve the dispute regarding the question of jurisdiction, the Court referred to explanation (b) Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 which provides that a suit or proceeding for a declaration as to the validity of a marriage or as to the 'matrimonial status' of any person shall be adjudicated by a Family Court.Further, Section 8 of the Act reinforces the exclusivity of the Family Court's jurisdiction by expressly barring the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in matters covered under Section 7. Above all, Section 20 says that provisions of the Family Court Act shall have over-riding effect over any other law that may be inconsistent with it.Reference was also made to the following observations made by the Supreme Court in Balram Yadav v. Fulmaniya Yadav (2016) –“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.”After perusing the aforementioned provisions along with the precedent, the Court held that...

Family Courts Are Governed By General Principles Of Delay & Laches, Not By Strict Provisions Of Limitation Act: Orissa HC

Jyoti Prakash Dutta

Tags