IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION Nos.23914-23916 OF 2018 (GM-FC) BETWEEN:
1. SMT H P SHOBHA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS WIFE OF LATE J.P. NARAYANASWAMY, RESIDING AT NO.11, 1ST CROSS, ACCHAIAH SHETTY LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560080.
2. MASTER N. HARIKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS S/O LATE J.P. NARAYANASWAMY, RESIDING AT NO. 11, 1ST CROSS, ACCHAIAH SHETTY LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560080, SINCE MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER H.P. SHOBHA.
3. KUMARI N. HIRANMAYI DAUGHTER OF LATE J.P. NARAYANASWAMY, RESIDING AT NO. 11, 1ST CROSS, ACCHAIAH SHETTY LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560080, SINCE MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER H.P. SHOBHA.
(By MR. B M HALASWAMY, ADV.) AND:
SMT PARVATHAMMA W/O LATE J.P. NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 350, 4TH MAIN, … PETITIONERS UPPER PALACE ORCHARDS, SADASHIVNAGAR, BANGALORE-560080.
(By MR. C G GOWRISHANKAR, ADV.) … RESPONDENT THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 02.03.2018 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. PRINCIPAL FAMILY JUDGE, BANGALORE REGARDING MAINTAIANABILITY OF SUIT IN O.S.NO.261/2017 ANNEXURE-A; AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri.B.M.Halaswamy, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Sri.C.Gowrishankar, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The petitions are admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, heard finally.
3. In these petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed the validity of the order dated 02.03.2018 passed by the Family Court and has held that the suit filed by the respondent is maintainable. The respondent has filed a suit seeking the following reliefs before the Family Court:
a)Grant a Decree of Declaration that the 1st Defendant is not the wife of Deceased J.P.Narayanaswamy and defendants 2 and 3 are not the children born from Late J.P.Narayanaswamy.
b) To declare the marriage solemnized between J.P.Narayanaswamy and 1st Defendant on 15-08-1999 and registered on 27-08-2012 before the Sub-Registrar Bengaluru is nullity and void ab initio.
c)Direct the Defendants or anyone claiming under them not to claim any rights in the estate of Deceased J.P.Narayanaswamy.
d)Restrain the defendants from using the name of Late J.P.Narayanaswamy in any of the records and asserting as wife and children of deceased J.P.Narayanaswamy.
e)Grant such other relief or reliefs as deemed fit and proper to grant in the circumstances of the case with cost in the interest of justice and equity.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the trial Court has failed to take note of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in ‘SAMAR KUMAR ROY (DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE (MOTHER)’, 2017(9) SCC 591 as well as ‘R.KASTHURI AND OTHERS v/s. M.KASTHURI AND OTHERS’, (2018) 5 SCC 353.
It is further submitted that the suit is maintainable before the trial court under the provisions of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and not under the Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short).
5. On the other hand, learned senior counsel for the respondent has invited the attention of this Court to Section 20 of the Act and has submitted that the Family Court has jurisdiction to decide the suit filed by the petitioners and he shall confine the reliefs to (a) and (b) before the Family Court. It is further submitted that in the aforesaid decision, the Supreme Court has not held that the Family Court does not have jurisdiction to deal with the status of a person.
6. I have considered the submission made on both sides. By the impugned order dated 02.03.2018, it is evident that the Family Court, by placing reliance on the decision of this Court in ‘DEVA PRASAD REDDY v/s.KAMINI REDDY AND ANOTHER’, (AIR 2002 KAR 356) has held that the suit filed by the petitioners is maintainable. The effect of the decisions of the Supreme Court as well as the effect of the provisions contained in Sections 7 and 20 of the Act has not been considered by the Family Court. The Family Court shall also look into reliefs (a) and (b) as submitted by learned senior counsel for respondent.
7. For the afore mentioned reasons, the impugned order dated 02.03.2018 is quashed and the matter remitted to the Family Court to decide the same in the light of the submissions made supra afresh by a speaking order, expeditiously.
Accordingly, the Petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE BNV