Declaration of Marital Status Falls Under Exclusive Domain of Family Courts: Allahabad High Court Partly Allows Appeal, Orders Return of Suit Instead of Dismissal

“Once Matrimonial Status Is in Dispute, Jurisdiction Lies Only With the Family Court—Civil Court Must Return the Suit and Not Dismiss It on Merits”, On 4th September 2025, the Allahabad High Court in Smt. Varsha Sharma @ Suman v. Ajay Sharma & Another, corrected a jurisdictional error committed by the trial court, holding that a civil court cannot decide suits seeking declaration of marital status, and instead must return the plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC for presentation to the competent Family Court.

Justice Sandeep Jain, while partly allowing First Appeal No. 812 of 2022, set aside the rejection of the suit by the Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Gautam Budh Nagar, observing:

“The trial court has erred in dismissing the suit and not returning the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation to the competent court of jurisdiction… This illegality needs to be rectified.”

“Declaration That One Is a Legal Wife Falls Squarely Within Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984”

The litigation arose when the appellant, Smt. Varsha Sharma @ Suman, filed a civil suit claiming to be the second legally wedded wife of late Mukesh Sharma, after his first wife Rekha had passed away. She asserted that she had married Mukesh Sharma as per Hindu rites on 12.03.2011, and lived with him until his demise on 21.03.2014. The dispute arose when the defendants (Mukesh Sharma’s son Ajay Sharma and another heir) refused to recognize her marital status, allegedly to deny her share in ₹30 crore worth of movable and immovable properties.

In her plaint, she prayed for a declaration that she be recognised as the second legal wife, as well as consequential reliefs.

The trial court dismissed the suit citing lack of jurisdiction, holding that the relief pertained to matrimonial status, which under Section 7(1)(b) of the Family Courts Act lies within the exclusive jurisdiction of Family Courts. The High Court agreed with this legal position but found fault in the remedy applied by the trial court.

“Suit Should Have Been Returned, Not Dismissed—Order 7 Rule 10 CPC Squarely Applies”

Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in EXL Careers v. Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd., (2020) 12 SCC 667, the High Court clarified:

“Where the court lacked jurisdiction, then the plaint has to be returned in view of Order 7 Rule 10 CPC, to enable the plaintiff to present it before the court having competent jurisdiction.”

It was further emphasized that: “The court of appeal or revision may also direct, after setting aside the decree passed in a suit, the return of the plaint for presenting it before the court of competent jurisdiction.”

The Court held that the Family Courts Act has an overriding effect over the CPC, and reiterated the Apex Court’s ratio in Balram Yadav v. Fulmaniya Yadav, (2016) 13 SCC 308, which ruled:

“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… What is important is the declaration regarding the matrimonial status.”

“Claim That Wife Was a Mere Maid Is Factual Issue—Merits Cannot Be Examined by Civil Court When Jurisdiction Is Lacking”

The defendants had countered the appellant’s claim by alleging she was merely a maidservant employed in their house, and not legally married to Mukesh Sharma. They alleged fabrication of documents and claimed multiple criminal cases had been filed against her.

The trial court had evaluated some of these contentions, which the High Court found to be legally impermissible in the absence of jurisdiction:

“The trial court could not have examined the merits of the case once it had concluded it lacked jurisdiction… The only course open was to return the plaint.”

Justice Sandeep Jain, while upholding the trial court’s conclusion on jurisdiction, set aside the dismissal of the suit, holding it to be procedurally flawed. The operative portion of the judgment states:

“The impugned judgment and decree of the trial court dated 17.09.2022, in so far as the rejection of the whole suit is concerned, is set aside. The finding of the trial court that the suit is not maintainable for lack of jurisdiction is upheld.”

“The trial court is directed to return the original plaint to the plaintiff in accordance with Order 7 Rule 10 CPC for presentation before the court of competent jurisdiction.”

Date of Decision: 4th September 2025