- Case
- HARIDAS MAHADEV SASNE v. TEJASVINI KRUSHNAT BHOSALE (Bombay High Court, 06-03-2025)
- Law
- Code of Civil Procedure, Family Courts Act, Specific Relief Act.
Facts: The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration that no marriage was solemnized between him and the defendant. The defendant claimed to be married to the plaintiff and filed an application for rejection of the plaint, arguing that the suit sought a negative declaration not maintainable under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Procedural Posture: The Civil Judge rejected the defendant's application. The defendant then filed a Civil Revision Application before the High Court challenging the order of the Civil Judge.
Issue: Is a suit for a declaration simpliciter that there is no marital relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant maintainable, particularly considering Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963?
Holding: Yes, a suit for a negative declaration that the defendant is not legally married to the plaintiff is maintainable. The High Court upheld the Civil Judge's decision to reject the application for rejection of the plaint.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, is not the sole repository of the power to grant a declaration. A civil court, in exercise of its ordinary civil jurisdiction referable to Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, may grant a declaration dehors the provisions contained in Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. The term "legal character" in Section 34 is of wide amplitude, and marital status falls within its ambit. The Court distinguished the Karnataka High Court's view in Bhuvaneshwari and relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Balram Yadav vs. Fulmaniya Yadav, which held that disputes regarding matrimonial status are to be decided by the Family Court, irrespective of whether the relief sought is affirmative or negative. The Court also noted that a declaration about marital status itself assumes the character of a substantive relief.
