1 2025:CGHC:2076 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 104 of 2023 1 - Raunak Verma S/o Late Raja Ram Verma Aged About 13 Years. 2 - Pranay Verma S/o Raja Ram Verma Aged About 11 Years Both minors Through Natural Guardian/mother Smt. Bhagawati Verma W/o Tamraj Patel (Wrongly Mentioned As She Is The Wife Of Late Raja Ram) Age About 32 Years. All R/o Of Village Kanharpuri (Wrongly Mentioned, As She Is The R/o Village Titurghat Tehsil Dhamdha District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants. versus 1 - Smt. Kirtan Bai Wd/o Late Subedar Verma Aged About 72 Years Permanent R/o Village Titurghat, Tehsil Dhamdha District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Plaintiff) Through Amicus Curie chinta Ram Kashyap S/o Late Pratap Singh Kashyap Aged 63 Years, R/o Village Bhikhampur, Tehsil Sahaspur Lohara, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Durg.(Defendant No.3) ... Respondent(s) For Applicants : Shri Uttam Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Shri Yash Maurya appears on behalf of Shri Vinod Kumar Pandey, Advocates. For State Shri Ajit Singh, GA. AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2025.01.15 16:33:21 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board 13/01/2025 1. This Revision has been preferred assailing the order dated 13.07.2023 passed by Civil Judge Class-2, Dhamdha District Durg, Chhattisgarh in Civil Suit No.135A/2023 whereby, objection raised by applicants/defendants under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of Civil Procedure Code read with Section 8 of the Family Court Act, 1984 as regards maintainability of the suit was disallowed and the application was dismissed. 2. Necessary facts of the case are that Non-Applicant No.1/plaintiff has filed a civil suit for declaration, permanent injunction and for the declaration that the Will executed by late Subedar Verma in favour of minor defendants on 16.06.2021 is null and void. Plaintiff also sought partition and declaration on the ground that she is the wife of late Subedar Verma. Further she challenged the order dated 23.02.2023 passed by the Sub Divisional OfÏcer (Revenue). During trial, applicants/defendants have raised objection that declaration of matrimonial status of any person falls within the ambit of family court. Hence the matter in its present form is not maintainable before the civil court. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicant/plaintiff would support the order impugned. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. In the matter of Samar Kumar Roy (DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE (MOTHER) v. Jharna Bera {(2017) 9 SCC 591}, it has 3 been held that suit for declaration of legal character of parties in regard to their alleged marriage can be filed under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act by the plaintiff and on his death the same can be continued by his legal representatives at behest of plaintiff. 6. Admittedly, in the present suit, one of the party to the marriage has already died and there is serious dispute as regards property of the deceased. In view of the explanation under Section 7 (c) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (henceforth “The Act, 1984”) that when there is dispute of the property of the parties or either of them, the same will fall under the ambit of Family Court. 7. Instead in the case at hand, there is dispute of the property of the deceased between the plaintiff and minor applicants because deceased had allegedly executed a Will in the favour of applicants. Whether the said Will is genuine or not and whether the plaintiff has a locus to challenge the said will on the ground that she is the wife of deceased Subedar Verma, would be decided by recording evidence. 8. Considering the nature of suit, this Court is of the view that as per explanation of (c) of Section 7 of the Act, 1984 the parties are not present and the dispute lies between other parties, there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order warranting any interference invoking revisional jurisdiction. 9. Resultantly this Revision fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Avinash