JUDGMENT : Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with judgment & decree dated 14-10-2022 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Manendragarh, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur in Civil Suit No.94A/2019, the appellants herein namely, Shyama Devi – original defendant No.2 i.e. appellant No.1 herein and appellants No.2 to 5 herein who were added with the leave of the court, have preferred this appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, questioning the said judgment & decree by which the Family Court has decreed the suit filed by the original plaintiffs declaring that the original plaintiff No.1 was the legally wedded wife of Late Shri Mundrika Prasad Patel and plaintiff No.2 Sangeeta Patel is the daughter out of their wedlock. 2. Original plaintiff No.1 Shyama Devi Patel died during the pendency of suit and therefore plaintiff No.2 Sangeeta Patel has been arrayed as respondent No.1 herein. 3. The aforesaid decree impugned passed by the Family Court has been challenged on the following factual backdrop: - (For the sake of convenience, parties hereinafter will be referred as per their status shown and ranking given in the civil suit before the Family Court.) 4. Late Mundrika Prasad Patel was working on the post of EPGH in Open Cast Mine, Chirmiri of South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL). He died in harness on 5-2-2016. It was the case of original plaintiff No.1 that her marriage was solemnized with late Mundrika Prasad Patel at Village Khairhai Purwa, District Rewa, Madhya Pradesh, 36 years prior to the date of institution of suit i.e. 2-9-2019 and after two years of marriage, her husband secured employment in SECL Chirmiri Colliery and she also went along with her husband to Chrimiri where they were blessed with daughter Sangeeta Patel – plaintiff No.2 and their names were also recorded in the service record of SECL. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that in order to maintain the ancestral property of late Mundrika Prasad Patel, original plaintiff No.1 along with her daughter came to Village Khairhai, Rewa and started living there, meanwhile, her husband has kept defendant No.2 as servant and developed relation with her and after his death, she has obtained all the dues on the basis of alleged nomination, as defendant No.2’s original name is Rajkumari and she was only a maid servant of her husband, her husband has not entered into any marriage with her and no divorce has taken place between her and her husband, therefore, it be declared that original plaintiff No.1 is the legally wedded wife of late Mundrika Prasad Patel and plaintiff No.2 is their daughter and decree be passed accordingly. 5. Defendant No.1 SECL has filed written statement stating that Smt. Shyama Devi – defendant No.2 was nominated by late Mundrika Prasad Patel for gratuity and provident fund amount and on the recommendation of local MLA, all dues have been paid to her. 6. Defendant No.2 has also filed written statement stating that she is the only legally wedded wife of late Mundrika Prasad Patel and marriage took place between them in the year 1989 and they have been blessed with three daughters & one son whose names have been entered in the service record and as such, the suit deserves to be dismissed. 7. The Family Court framed following two issues and answered the issues in affirmative which state as under: - 8. In sum and substance, the Family Court has held that original plaintiff No.1 is the legally wedded wife of late Mundrika Prasad Patel and plaintiff No.2 is the daughter born out of the wedlock of original plaintiff No.1 & late Mundrika Prasad Patel. The Family Court has further held that date of birth of defendant No.2, as per Ex.D-10 – aadhar card and Ex.D-11 – election identity card submitted by defendant No.2 herself, is 1-1-1977 and the alleged marriage said to have taken place in the year 1989 cannot be said to have been solemnized as per law, as defendant No.2 was only 12 years of age at that time, which is in violation of Section 5(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and therefore it cannot be said to be a legal marriage. The Family Court decreed the suit which is sought to be challenged by defendant No.2 and her daughters & son subsequently added with the leave of the court, by filing the instant appeal. 9. Mr. Viprasen Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants herein/defendant No.2 and her children, would submit that the suit as framed and filed was not maintainable for two reasons, firstly, Mundrika Prasad Patel had already died and there is no subsisting marriage and in that view of the matter, suit or proceeding between the parties to marriage would not be maintainable since husband had died, therefore, the suit would not be maintainable and secondly, original plaintiff No.1 has passed declaration of their matrimonial status that she is the legally wedded wife of late Mundrika Prasad Patel which is in the shape of declaration under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act and, therefore, suit would not be maintainable. He would further submit that finding of the Family Court on merits is also perverse and is liable to be set aside, as there is ample evidence on record to show that only and only defendant No.2 is the legally wedded wife of late Mundrika Prasad Patel and, therefore, the impugned judgment & decree are liable to be set aside. 10. Mr. Parag Kotecha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 herein/plaintiff No.2, would submit that the jurisdiction of a court created specially for resolution of disputes of certain kinds should be construed liberally and even if husband of original plaintiff No.1 died then also, the suit for declaration would be maintainable. He would further submit that in case there is a dispute regarding matrimonial status of any person, suit would be maintainable in view of Explanation (b) attached to Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. As such, the suit was clearly maintainable and defendant No.2 did not raise objection in this regard before the Family Court also, therefore, the objection deserves to be overruled. He would also submit that there is ample evidence on record to hold that original plaintiff No.1 was the only legally wedded wife of late Mundrika Prasad Patel and therefore the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 12. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 12. In this first appeal, following would be the points for determination:- 1. Whether the suit as framed and filed seeking declaration regarding matrimonial status would be maintainable? 2. Whether the Family Court is justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs? Answer to Question No.1 13. In order to consider the plea raised at the Bar, it would be appropriate to notice the relevant provisions contained in the Family Courts Act, 1984. Section 7 of the Family Courts Act deals with jurisdiction of the Family Courts, which provides as under: - " 7. Jurisdiction .—(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a Family Court shall— (a) have and exercise all the jurisdiction exercisable by any district court or any subordinate civil court under any law for the time being in force in respect of suits and proceedings of the nature referred to in the explanation; and (b) be deemed, for the purposes of exercising such jurisdiction under such law, to be a district court or, as the case may be, such subordinate civil court for the area to which the jurisdiction of the Family Court extends. Explanation.—The suits and proceedings referred to in this sub-section are suits and proceedings of the following nature, namely:— (a) xxx xxx xxx (b) a suit or proceeding for a declaration as to the validity of a marriage or as to the matrimonial status of any person; (c) to (g) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx" 14. Section 8 of the Family Courts Act deals with exclusion of jurisdiction, which states as under: - " 8. Section 8 of the Family Courts Act deals with exclusion of jurisdiction, which states as under: - " 8. Exclusion of jurisdiction and pending proceedings —Where a Family Court has been established for any area,— (a) no district court or any subordinate civil court referred to in sub-section (1) of section 7 shall, in relation to such area, have or exercise any jurisdiction in respect of any suit or proceeding of the nature referred to in the Explanation to that sub-section; (b) no magistrate shall, in relation to such area, have or exercise any jurisdiction or power under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974); (c) every suit or proceeding of the nature referred to in the Explanation to sub-section (1) of section 7 and every proceeding under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),— (i) which is pending immediately before the establishment of such Family Court before any district court or subordinate court referred to in that sub- section or, as the case may be, before any magistrate under the said Code; and (ii) which would have been required to be instituted or taken before or by such Family Court if, before the date on which such suit or proceeding was instituted or taken, this Act had come into force and such Family Court had been established, shall stand transferred to such Family Court on the date on which it is established." 15. Section 20 of the Family Courts Act provides for overriding effect of the Act on other laws or instruments having the effect of law. It states as follows: - " 20. Act to have overriding effect .—The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act." 16. A careful perusal of Explanation (b) to Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act would show that 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 this regard, the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Balram Yadav v. Fulmaniya Yadav , (2016) 13 SCC 308 may be noticed herein in which their Lordships have clearly held that 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, and observed as under: - "7. 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. It makes no difference as to whether it is an affirmative relief or a negative relief. What is important is the declaration regarding the matrimonial status. Section 20 also endorses the view which we have taken, since the Family Courts Act, 1984, has an overriding effect on other laws." 17. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court also relied upon Section 20 of the Family Courts Act which provides for overriding effect of the Act on other laws or instruments having the effect of law. 18. In that view of the matter, the plaintiffs' suit filed by original plaintiff No.1 seeking declaration regarding matrimonial status that she is the legally wedded wife of late Mundrika Prasad Patel was clearly maintainable in view of the provision contained in Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act read with Explanation (b) appended to it. We do not find any merit in the objection raised by learned counsel for the appellants herein qua jurisdiction of the Family Court to deal with the suit filed by the plaintiffs. 19. Similarly, the objection raised by learned counsel for the appellants herein that since the husband died on 5-2-2016, the suit or proceeding by original plaintiff No.1 seeking declaration as to her matrimonial status would not be maintainable, is hereby overruled. 19. Similarly, the objection raised by learned counsel for the appellants herein that since the husband died on 5-2-2016, the suit or proceeding by original plaintiff No.1 seeking declaration as to her matrimonial status would not be maintainable, is hereby overruled. In this regard, the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of K.A. Abdul Jaleel v. T.A. Shahida , (2003) 4 SCC 166 may be noticed herein in which their Lordships have clearly held that the jurisdiction of a court created specially for resolution of disputes of certain kinds should be construed liberally, and observed as under:- “12. The submission of the learned counsel to the effect that this Court should read the words "a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage" as parties to a subsisting marriage, in our considered view would lead to miscarriage of justice. 13. The Family Court was set up for settlement of family disputes. The reason for enactment of the said Act was to set up a court which would deal with disputes concerning the family by adopting an approach radically different from that adopted in ordinary civil proceedings. The said Act was enacted despite the fact that Order 32-A of the Code of Civil Procedure was inserted by reason of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976, which could not bring about any desired result. 14. It is now a well-settled principle of law that the jurisdiction of a court created specially for resolution of disputes of certain kinds should be construed liberally. The restricted meaning if ascribed to Explanation (c) appended to Section 7 of the Act, in our opinion, would frustrate the object wherefor the Family Courts were set up." 20. In conclusion, we hereby reject the objection qua the jurisdiction of the Family Court. Answer to Question No.2 21. Now, coming to the merits of the case, it is the case of the plaintiffs that marriage of original plaintiff No.1 was solemnized with late Mundrika Prasad Patel 36 years prior to the date of filing of the suit. In conclusion, we hereby reject the objection qua the jurisdiction of the Family Court. Answer to Question No.2 21. Now, coming to the merits of the case, it is the case of the plaintiffs that marriage of original plaintiff No.1 was solemnized with late Mundrika Prasad Patel 36 years prior to the date of filing of the suit. The suit was filed on 2-9-2019 which the Family Court has considered and held that marriage was solemnized in the year 1983- 84, however, in this regard, original plaintiff No.1 has examined herself as plaintiff witness No.1 in which she has clearly stated that her marriage was solemnized as per Hindu rituals with late Mundrika Prasad Patel 36 years prior to the date of filing the suit and after marriage, they both stayed at Village Khairhai, District Rewa (M.P.) for two years and thereafter, she left with her husband to Chirmiri, as he got employment in Chirmiri Colliery and they were blessed with a daughter Sangeeta Patel - plaintiff No.2 and thereafter, she came back to the village to look-after the ancestral property of late Mundrika Prasad Patel. She has further stated that Rajkumari - defendant No.2 was kept as maid servant by her husband in the house at Chirmiri. In paragraph 6, a suggestion was made to her that no such marriage has taken place between her and late Mundrika Prasad Patel as per Hindu rituals which has been refuted by her. 22. Similarly, Ramdayal (PW-2) - brother of original plaintiff No.1 has been examined in which he has also stated that marriage between his sister Shyama Devi - original plaintiff No.1 and late Mundrika Prasad Patel was solemnized 36 years prior to the date of filing of the suit and they were blessed with a daughter namely, Sangeeta Patel, but surprisingly, no suggestion has been made that no such marriage has been solemnized. 23. Munnalal (PW-3), who is also the resident of Village Khairhai from where original plaintiff No.1 hails, has stated in paragraph 3 of his cross-examination that one Chandraman Pandit has solemnized the marriage of late Mundrika Prasad Patel and original plaintiff No.1. 24. 23. Munnalal (PW-3), who is also the resident of Village Khairhai from where original plaintiff No.1 hails, has stated in paragraph 3 of his cross-examination that one Chandraman Pandit has solemnized the marriage of late Mundrika Prasad Patel and original plaintiff No.1. 24. Not only this, on the basis of aforesaid statements of original plaintiff No.1 and other plaintiff witnesses, the Family Court came to the conclusion that marriage of original plaintiff No.1 and late Mundrika Prasad Patel was performed in the year 1983-84 and they were blessed with a daughter whose name was entered in the service of SECL on 20-9-1989. On the contrary, with regard to marriage of late Mundrika Prasad Patel with defendant No.2, the Family Court has clearly recorded finding as per Ex.D-10 Aadhar Card and Ex.D-11 - election identity card that date of birth of defendant No.2 has been recorded as 1-1-1977 and her marriage has been said to be solemnized with late Mundrika Prasad Patel in the year 1989, as such, at the time of alleged marriage, defendant No.2 was only 12 years of age which is contrary to Section 5(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which clearly mandates that a marriage may be solemnized between any two Hindus, but at the time of marriage, the bride should have completed the age of eighteen years. It is the case of defendant No.2 as recorded by the Family Court that at the time of alleged marriage, her age was only 12 years and thus, the said marriage is not legal marriage and it is punishable under Section 18 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which provides that every person who procures a marriage of himself or herself to be solemnised under this Act in contravention of the conditions specified in clauses (iii), (iv), and (v) of section 5 shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. 25. 25. As such, except the self-serving statement of defendant No.2, there is no evidence demonstrating the fact of marriage between her and late Mundrika Prasad Patel and, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the findings of the Family Court that (1) marriage of original plaintiff No.1 with late Mundrika Prasad Patel was performed in the year 1983-84 as per Hindu rituals at Village Khairhai, District Rewa, Madhya Pradesh and they were blessed with a daughter plaintiff No.1 Sangeeta Patel; (2) defendant No.2's real name is Rajkumari and she has not brought any evidence to demonstrate that she is the legally wedded wife of late Mundrika Prasad Patel and as per defendant No.2 herself, when her marriage with late Mundrika Prasad Patel was solemnised in the year 1989; and (3) her name was Rajkumari as admitted by herself as DW-1 in para 11 of his statement before the Court, are correct findings of fact based on the evidence available on record, they are neither perverse nor contrary to the record and we hereby affirm the said findings. 26. In that view of the matter, the Family Court is absolutely justified in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiffs. We hereby affirm the judgment & decree impugned passed by the Family Court. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in this appeal, it deserves to be and is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 27. Decree be drawn-up accordingly.