RSA-1421-2025 143 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Tarawati Vs Captain Sunil Kumar and ors. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH Present: Mr. Sushil Sheoran, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Mr. Ajay Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Lalit Attri, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4. HARKESH MANUJA, J. By way of the present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment and decree dated 15.01.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani Court'), whereby the appeal preferred at the instanc against the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhiwani (hereinafter referred to as Court') decreeing the suit for declaration and mandatory injunction, came to be allowed, thereby reversing the decision of the learned Trial Court and dismissing the suit filed at the instance of 2. Briefly stating, the appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration to the effect that she is the legally wedded wife of Retd. Lt. Col. Late Hawa 25 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-1421 Date of Decision: Vs Captain Sunil Kumar and ors. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH Mr. Sushil Sheoran, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Surender Kumar, Advocate and Mr. Ajay Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Lalit Attri, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. By way of the present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment and decree dated 15.01.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani (hereinafter referred to as ), whereby the appeal preferred at the instanc against the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhiwani (hereinafter referred to as ) decreeing the suit for declaration and mandatory injunction, came d, thereby reversing the decision of the learned Trial Court and dismissing the suit filed at the instance of the Briefly stating, the appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration to the effect that she is the legally wedded wife of Retd. Lt. Col. Late Hawa IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1421-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 23.07.2026 ......Appellant …..Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Surender Kumar, Advocate and Mr. Ajay Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate By way of the present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment and decree dated 15.01.2025 passed by the learned Additional (hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate ), whereby the appeal preferred at the instance of respondent no.1 against the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhiwani (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial ) decreeing the suit for declaration and mandatory injunction, came d, thereby reversing the decision of the learned Trial Court and the plaintiff. Briefly stating, the appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration to the effect that she is the legally wedded wife of Retd. Lt. Col. Late Hawa 1 By way of the present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment and decree dated 15.01.2025 passed by the learned Additional 'the First Appellate e of respondent no.1 against the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2023 passed by the learned 'the Trial ) decreeing the suit for declaration and mandatory injunction, came d, thereby reversing the decision of the learned Trial Court and Briefly stating, the appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration to the effect that she is the legally wedded wife of Retd. Lt. Col. Late Hawa SANJAY GUPTA 2026.07.28 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1421-2025 Singh and for a mandatory injunction directing defendants No.2 to 5 to record her name in the Part favour from 26.07.2020. It was further pleaded that Late Lt. Col. Hawa Singh's first wife, Savitri Devi, died on 16.01.1997, and that she married Late Lt. Col. Hawa Singh on 26.10.2018 at Arya Samaj Vaidik Mandal, Delhi. It was also submitted that Late Lt. Col. Hawa Singh had lifetime, informed the department of the remarriage, and that her name appeared as his wife in his bank account, his ESM Canteen Smart Card, and his Aadhaar record. Hence, she was entitled to only legal heir left. Despite multiple writings to defendants No.2 to 5 for updation of the records and release of her pension, no action was taken; hence, she filed the suit. 3. Defendants No.2 to 4 filed a joint written statement w preliminary objections, they pleaded that the suit was not maintainable, that the plaintiff was estopped by her own act and conduct, and that the suit was bad for non was pleaded that a officer's spouse for family pension purposes was still that of Savitri Devi, and that any event of remarriage of a retired officer the service headquarters, which would forward t specified set of documents, to the PCDA ( PPO. No such claim, complete with the requisite documents, received from either Late Lt. Col. Hawa Singh in his lifetime or the plaintiff thereafter and in the absence of these documents, the defendants were not 25 (O&M) and for a mandatory injunction directing defendants No.2 to 5 to record her name in the Part-II Order and release family pension in her favour from 26.07.2020. It was further pleaded that Late Lt. Col. Hawa Singh's first wife, Savitri Devi, died on 16.01.1997, and that she married Late Lt. Col. Hawa Singh on 26.10.2018 at Arya Samaj Vaidik Mandal, It was also submitted that Late Lt. Col. Hawa Singh had lifetime, informed the department of the remarriage, and that her name appeared as his wife in his bank account, his ESM Canteen Smart Card, and his Aadhaar record. Hence, she was entitled to only legal heir left. Despite multiple writings to defendants No.2 to 5 for updation of the records and release of her pension, no action was taken; hence, she filed the suit. Defendants No.2 to 4 filed a joint written statement w preliminary objections, they pleaded that the suit was not maintainable, that the plaintiff was estopped by her own act and conduct, and that the suit was bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it was pleaded that as per the departmental record, the name notified as the officer's spouse for family pension purposes was still that of Savitri Devi, and that any event of remarriage of a retired officer the service headquarters, which would forward t specified set of documents, to the PCDA ( PPO. No such claim, complete with the requisite documents, received from either Late Lt. Col. Hawa Singh in his lifetime or the plaintiff d in the absence of these documents, the defendants were not and for a mandatory injunction directing defendants No.2 to 5 to r and release family pension in her favour from 26.07.2020. It was further pleaded that Late Lt. Col. Hawa Singh's first wife, Savitri Devi, died on 16.01.1997, and that she married Late Lt. Col. Hawa Singh on 26.10.2018 at Arya Samaj Vaidik Mandal, It was also submitted that Late Lt. Col. Hawa Singh had in his lifetime, informed the department of the remarriage, and that her name appeared as his wife in his bank account, his ESM Canteen Smart Card, and his Aadhaar record. Hence, she was entitled to the pension being the only legal heir left. Despite multiple writings to defendants No.2 to 5 for updation of the records and release of her pension, no action was taken; Defendants No.2 to 4 filed a joint written statement wherein, preliminary objections, they pleaded that the suit was not maintainable, that the plaintiff was estopped by her own act and conduct, and that the suit joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it s per the departmental record, the name notified as the officer's spouse for family pension purposes was still that of Savitri Devi, and that any event of remarriage of a retired officer was to be reported to the service headquarters, which would forward the claim, along with a specified set of documents, to the PCDA (P) for issuance of a corrigenda PPO. No such claim, complete with the requisite documents, was ever received from either Late Lt. Col. Hawa Singh in his lifetime or the plaintiff d in the absence of these documents, the defendants were not 2 and for a mandatory injunction directing defendants No.2 to 5 to r and release family pension in her favour from 26.07.2020. It was further pleaded that Late Lt. Col. Hawa Singh's first wife, Savitri Devi, died on 16.01.1997, and that she married Late Lt. Col. Hawa Singh on 26.10.2018 at Arya Samaj Vaidik Mandal, in his lifetime, informed the department of the remarriage, and that her name appeared as his wife in his bank account, his ESM Canteen Smart Card, the pension being the only legal heir left. Despite multiple writings to defendants No.2 to 5 for updation of the records and release of her pension, no action was taken; on preliminary objections, they pleaded that the suit was not maintainable, that the plaintiff was estopped by her own act and conduct, and that the suit joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it s per the departmental record, the name notified as the officer's spouse for family pension purposes was still that of Savitri Devi, to be reported to he claim, along with a ) for issuance of a corrigenda was ever received from either Late Lt. Col. Hawa Singh in his lifetime or the plaintiff d in the absence of these documents, the defendants were not SANJAY GUPTA 2026.07.28 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1421-2025 in a position to update the records or issue a corrigenda PPO. Thus, it was to be dismissed. 4. On these pleadings, the following issues were framed vide order dated 03.12.2021: “(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) 5. Upon its judgment and decree dated 28.02.2023, decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff had proved her marriage with oral and documentary evidence widow of Late Lt. Col. defendant department was liable to update its records and release the pension on the plaintiff furnishing the requisite details. 6. Aggrieved thereby, the respon Hawa Singh filed the first appeal, which was a Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 15.01.2025, holding that respondent no.1, being a son and legal heir of the deceased directly affected by the decree, had the 25 (O&M) in a position to update the records or issue a corrigenda PPO. Thus, it was to be dismissed. On these pleadings, the following issues were framed vide order dated 03.12.2021: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of suit for declaration with the consequential relief of mandatory injunction, as prayed for? OPP Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi, no cause of action to file the suit? OPD Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD (iv) Whether the plaintiff is estopped by her own act and conduct from filing the suit? OPD Whether the suit of plaintiff is bad for non joinder of necessary parties? OPD (vi) Relief.” Upon appreciation of the evidence, the learned Trial Court its judgment and decree dated 28.02.2023, decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff had proved her marriage with Late Lt. Col. oral and documentary evidence and she was the Late Lt. Col. Hawa Singh, entitled to family pension and the defendant department was liable to update its records and release the pension on the plaintiff furnishing the requisite details. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent Hawa Singh filed the first appeal, which was a Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 15.01.2025, holding that respondent no.1, being a son and legal heir of the deceased directly by the decree, had the locus to maintain the appeal, and that the in a position to update the records or issue a corrigenda PPO. Thus, it was On these pleadings, the following issues were framed vide plaintiff is entitled for the relief of suit for declaration with the consequential relief of mandatory injunction, as prayed for? OPP Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi, no cause of action maintainable in the present form? Whether the plaintiff is estopped by her own act and conduct from filing the suit? OPD Whether the suit of plaintiff is bad for non-joinder and mis joinder of necessary parties? OPD appreciation of the evidence, the learned Trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 28.02.2023, decreed the suit holding that Late Lt. Col. Hawa Singh through and she was the legally wedded wife and Hawa Singh, entitled to family pension and the defendant department was liable to update its records and release the pension on the plaintiff furnishing the requisite details. dent No.1, son of Late Lt. Col. Hawa Singh filed the first appeal, which was allowed by the learned First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 15.01.2025, holding that respondent no.1, being a son and legal heir of the deceased directly to maintain the appeal, and that the 3 in a position to update the records or issue a corrigenda PPO. Thus, it was On these pleadings, the following issues were framed vide plaintiff is entitled for the relief of suit for declaration with the consequential relief of mandatory Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi, no cause of action maintainable in the present form? Whether the plaintiff is estopped by her own act and joinder and mis- vide its judgment and decree dated 28.02.2023, decreed the suit holding that Hawa Singh through legally wedded wife and Hawa Singh, entitled to family pension and the defendant department was liable to update its records and release the Late Lt. Col. by the learned First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 15.01.2025, holding that respondent no.1, being a son and legal heir of the deceased directly to maintain the appeal, and that the SANJAY GUPTA 2026.07.28 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1421-2025 suit was bad for non deceased's other legal heirs suit, being one for declaration of the validity status, was barred under Sections 7, 8 and 20 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as before the Civil Court. Hence, the present Regular Second Appeal. CONTENTIONS: ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the dispute, being merely one for release of family pension between the second wife and the son of the first wife, is not by the 1984 Act and that the First Appellate Court's finding of want of jurisdiction is perverse. v. M. Kasthuri and other Court held that a dispute between two claimants to the status of legally wedded wife of a deceased person, concerning legal heirship, is a purely civil dispute triable by the ordinary Civil Court and not one requiring the special procedure of the Family Court. ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT(S) 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 submits that the appellant's marital status vis Lt. Col. Hawa Singh was disputed, which i was preferred by respondent No.1. He submits that the First Appellate Court rightly held the suit to be not maintainable in its present form, the 25 (O&M) suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties since none of the deceased's other legal heirs were impleaded; and further holding that the suit, being one for declaration of the validity status, was barred under Sections 7, 8 and 20 of the Family Courts Act, (hereinafter referred to as “the 1984 before the Civil Court. Hence, the present Regular Second Appeal. CONTENTIONS: - BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT-PLAINTIFF Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the dispute, being merely one for release of family pension between the second wife and the son of the first wife, is not "matrimonial" Act and that the First Appellate Court's finding of want of jurisdiction is perverse. The reliance is placed on v. M. Kasthuri and others 2018 (5) SCC 353 Court held that a dispute between two claimants to the status of legally wedded wife of a deceased person, concerning legal heirship, is a purely civil dispute triable by the ordinary Civil Court and not one requiring the procedure of the Family Court. ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT(S)-DEFENDANT(S): On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 submits that the appellant's marital status vis Lt. Col. Hawa Singh was disputed, which i was preferred by respondent No.1. He submits that the First Appellate Court rightly held the suit to be not maintainable in its present form, the joinder of necessary parties since none of the impleaded; and further holding that the suit, being one for declaration of the validity of marriage and matrimonial status, was barred under Sections 7, 8 and 20 of the Family Courts Act, “the 1984 Act”), and not maintainable before the Civil Court. Hence, the present Regular Second Appeal. PLAINTIFF Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the dispute, being merely one for release of family pension between the second wife "matrimonial" in the sense contemplated Act and that the First Appellate Court's finding of want of eliance is placed on R. Kasthuri and others s 2018 (5) SCC 353 where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a dispute between two claimants to the status of legally wedded wife of a deceased person, concerning legal heirship, is a purely civil dispute triable by the ordinary Civil Court and not one requiring the DEFENDANT(S):- On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 submits that the appellant's marital status vis-à-vis Late Lt. Col. Hawa Singh was disputed, which is precisely why the first appeal was preferred by respondent No.1. He submits that the First Appellate Court rightly held the suit to be not maintainable in its present form, the 4 joinder of necessary parties since none of the impleaded; and further holding that the of marriage and matrimonial status, was barred under Sections 7, 8 and 20 of the Family Courts Act, , and not maintainable Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the dispute, being merely one for release of family pension between the second wife in the sense contemplated Act and that the First Appellate Court's finding of want of and others where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a dispute between two claimants to the status of legally wedded wife of a deceased person, concerning legal heirship, is a purely civil dispute triable by the ordinary Civil Court and not one requiring the On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of vis Late s precisely why the first appeal was preferred by respondent No.1. He submits that the First Appellate Court rightly held the suit to be not maintainable in its present form, the SANJAY GUPTA 2026.07.28 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1421-2025 Civil Court having no jurisdiction to try it in view of the bar under Section 8 and 20 of the 1984 correct appreciation of the facts and the law and calls for no interference, thus, prays that the present appeal be dismissed. DISCUSSION AND REASONING: 9. I have heard learned the paper book as well as records of the case. 10. The following substantial question of law arises for determination in the present appeal: 11. The suit for declaration was filed at the appellant/plaintiff against respondents No.2 to 5 with the following prayer: 25 (O&M) Civil Court having no jurisdiction to try it in view of the bar under Section 8 and 20 of the 1984 Act. He submits that the correct appreciation of the facts and the law and calls for no interference, prays that the present appeal be dismissed. DISCUSSION AND REASONING: I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book as well as records of the case. The following substantial question of law arises for determination in the present appeal: “Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that she is the legally wedded wife of the deceased, and consequentially entitled to family pension, was barred by Sections 7, 8 and 20 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, and hence not maintainable before the Civil The suit for declaration was filed at the appellant/plaintiff against respondents No.2 to 5 with the following prayer: "Suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is legal wedded wife of No.IC-23364 Singh, resident of village VPO Chahar Kalan, at Bank Colony, Tagore Nagar, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani and is entitled to get recorded her name as Smt. Tarawati in the PART-II Order in the name of No.IC Y Retd. Lt. Col. Late Hawa Singh, resident of village VPO Chahar Kalan, now resident of Bank Colony, Tagore Nagar, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani issued the defendants No.3 & 4 in the name of the Retd. Lt. Col. Late Hawa Singh and further entitled to get the family pension of military service of No.IC-23364-Y Retd. Lt resident of village VPO Chahar Kalan, now resident of Bank Civil Court having no jurisdiction to try it in view of the bar under Sections 7, He submits that the judgment being based on correct appreciation of the facts and the law and calls for no interference, prays that the present appeal be dismissed. counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book as well as records of the case. The following substantial question of law arises for Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that he legally wedded wife of the deceased, and consequentially entitled to family pension, was barred by Sections 7, 8 and 20 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, and hence not maintainable before the Civil Court?” The suit for declaration was filed at the instance of the appellant/plaintiff against respondents No.2 to 5 with the following prayer: "Suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is legal 23364-Y Retd. Lt. Col. Lt. Col. Late Hawa Singh, resident of village VPO Chahar Kalan, now resident at Bank Colony, Tagore Nagar, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani and is entitled to get recorded her name as Smt. II Order in the name of No.IC-23364 Y Retd. Lt. Col. Late Hawa Singh, resident of village VPO n, now resident of Bank Colony, Tagore Nagar, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani issued the defendants No.3 & 4 in the name of the Retd. Lt. Col. Late Hawa Singh and further entitled to get the family pension of military Y Retd. Lt. Col. Late Hawa Singh, resident of village VPO Chahar Kalan, now resident of Bank 5 s 7, based on correct appreciation of the facts and the law and calls for no interference, counsel for the parties and gone through The following substantial question of law arises for Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that he legally wedded wife of the deceased, and consequentially entitled to family pension, was barred by Sections 7, 8 and 20 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, and instance of the appellant/plaintiff against respondents No.2 to 5 with the following prayer:- "Suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is legal Y Retd. Lt. Col. Late Hawa now resident at Bank Colony, Tagore Nagar, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani and is entitled to get recorded her name as Smt. 23364- Y Retd. Lt. Col. Late Hawa Singh, resident of village VPO n, now resident of Bank Colony, Tagore Nagar, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani issued the defendants No.3 & 4 in the name of the Retd. Lt. Col. Late Hawa Singh and further entitled to get the family pension of military . Col. Late Hawa Singh, resident of village VPO Chahar Kalan, now resident of Bank SANJAY GUPTA 2026.07.28 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1421-2025 12. That the aforementioned prayer was based on the pleadings that the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff was decreed by the learned Trial Court vide judgment and from the decree sheet is extracted hereunder: 25 (O&M) Colony, Tagore Nagar, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani being his widow. And further for mandatory injunction directing the defendants No.2 to 5 to get recorded the name plaintiff as Smt. Tarawati widow of No.IC Col. Late Hawa Singh, resident of village VPO Chahar Kalan, now resident at Bank Colony, Tagore Nagar, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani and to release the widow pension in the name of p the basis of evidence both oral as well as documentary." That the aforementioned prayer was based on the pleadings that the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff was decreed by the learned Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 28.02.2023, the relevant portion from the decree sheet is extracted hereunder: "This suit coming on this day i.e. 28th February, 2023 before me (Anshuman, Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Bhiwani in the Presence: Sh. Anand Dhayal and Sh. Rahul Dha counsel for the plaintiff. Sh. Anil Kumar, counsel for defendants No.2 to 4. Defendant No.5 given up vide order dated 22.12.2022. Defendant No.1 already exparte vide order dated 18.12.2020. It is ordered that the suit of the plaintiff succeeds and is hereby decreed to the effect that Tarawati is hereby declared as widow of Retd. Lt. Col. Late Hawa Singh and thus, she is entitled to get recorded her name in records of the defendant department as wife of Late Hawa Singh on her furnishing all details as p department and the defendant department is thereafter directed to release entire due pension in favour of the plaintiff within 3 months of her furnishing the required details and documents and further directed to release the Colony, Tagore Nagar, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani And further for mandatory injunction directing the defendants No.2 to 5 to get recorded the name of the plaintiff as Smt. Tarawati widow of No.IC-23364-Y Retd. Lt. Col. Late Hawa Singh, resident of village VPO Chahar Kalan, now resident at Bank Colony, Tagore Nagar, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani and to release the widow pension in the name of plaintiff since 26.07.2020; on the basis of evidence both oral as well as documentary." That the aforementioned prayer was based on the pleadings that the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff was decreed by the learned Trial decree dated 28.02.2023, the relevant portion from the decree sheet is extracted hereunder:- "This suit coming on this day i.e. 28th February, 2023 before me (Anshuman, Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Bhiwani in the Presence: Sh. Anand Dhayal and Sh. Rahul Dhayal, counsel for the plaintiff. Sh. Anil Kumar, counsel for defendants No.2 to 4. Defendant No.5 given up vide order dated 22.12.2022. Defendant No.1 already exparte vide It is ordered that the suit of the plaintiff succeeds and hereby decreed to the effect that Tarawati is hereby declared as widow of Retd. Lt. Col. Late Hawa Singh and thus, she is entitled to get recorded her name in records of the defendant department as wife of Late Hawa Singh on her furnishing all details as per the format of the defendant department and the defendant department is thereafter directed to release entire due pension in favour of the plaintiff within 3 months of her furnishing the required details and documents and further directed to release the 6 Colony, Tagore Nagar, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani And further for mandatory injunction directing the of the Y Retd. Lt. Col. Late Hawa Singh, resident of village VPO Chahar Kalan, now resident at Bank Colony, Tagore Nagar, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani and to release the laintiff since 26.07.2020; on That the aforementioned prayer was based on the pleadings that the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff was decreed by the learned Trial decree dated 28.02.2023, the relevant portion "This suit coming on this day i.e. 28th February, 2023 before me (Anshuman, Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Bhiwani in yal, counsel for the plaintiff. Sh. Anil Kumar, counsel for defendants No.2 to 4. Defendant No.5 given up vide order dated 22.12.2022. Defendant No.1 already exparte vide It is ordered that the suit of the plaintiff succeeds and hereby decreed to the effect that Tarawati is hereby declared as widow of Retd. Lt. Col. Late Hawa Singh and thus, she is entitled to get recorded her name in records of the defendant department as wife of Late Hawa Singh on er the format of the defendant department and the defendant department is thereafter directed to release entire due pension in favour of the plaintiff within 3 months of her furnishing the required details and documents and further directed to release the SANJAY GUPTA 2026.07.28 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1421-2025 13. Aggrieved thereby, respondent No.1, son of Late Lt. Col. Hawa Singh from his first wife Savitri Devi dated 28.02.2023, pas Appeal No.25 of 2023/2025, titled as Tarawati and others' Hawa Singh was married to Smt. Savitri Devi and out of t the respondent No.1 was born. It was further pleaded that Smt. Savitri Devi unfortunately expired on 16.01.1997 followed by the demise of Late Lt. Col. Hawa Singh. It was also pleaded that the appellant/plaintiff was not the legally wedded of a valid marriage. Respondent No.1 further contended that of Late Lt. Col. Hawa Singh from his first wife, Smt. Savitri Devi, made party to the civil suit filed by the accordingly obtained behind their back by practising fraud upon the Court. The learned First Appellate Court, vide judgment and decree dated 15.01.2025, allowed the appeal, holding that the civil suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff was not maintainable, as the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide her matrimonial status. The relevant paragraphs No.26 and 27 are reproduced as under: “26. 25 (O&M) pension in favour of the plaintiff in future also if she provided all details as required." Aggrieved thereby, respondent No.1, son of Late Lt. Col. Hawa Singh from his first wife Savitri Devi, challenged the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2023, passed by the learned Trial Court, having preferred Civil Appeal No.25 of 2023/2025, titled as 'Captain Sunil Kumar (Retd.) Vs. Tarawati and others'. It was pleaded in the said appeal that Late Lt. Col. Hawa Singh was married to Smt. Savitri Devi and out of t the respondent No.1 was born. It was further pleaded that Smt. Savitri Devi unfortunately expired on 16.01.1997 followed by the demise of Late Lt. Col. Hawa Singh. It was also pleaded that the appellant/plaintiff was not the legally wedded wife of Late Lt. Col. Hawa Singh, since there was no proof of a valid marriage. Respondent No.1 further contended that of Late Lt. Col. Hawa Singh from his first wife, Smt. Savitri Devi, party to the civil suit filed by the appellant, and the decree accordingly obtained behind their back by practising fraud upon the Court. The learned First Appellate Court, vide judgment and decree dated 15.01.2025, allowed the appeal, holding that the civil suit filed by the aintiff was not maintainable, as the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide her matrimonial status. The relevant paragraphs No.26 and 27 are reproduced as under:- 26. Thus, the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form and the Civil Court does not have the jurisdiction to decide on the matrimonial status of the plaintiff the said relief being barred by virtue of Sections 5, 8 and 20 of the Family Courts Act. The impuged judgment pension in favour of the plaintiff in future also if she provided all details as required." Aggrieved thereby, respondent No.1, son of Late Lt. Col. Hawa challenged the judgment and decree sed by the learned Trial Court, having preferred Civil 'Captain Sunil Kumar (Retd.) Vs. . It was pleaded in the said appeal that Late Lt. Col. Hawa Singh was married to Smt. Savitri Devi and out of the said wedlock, the respondent No.1 was born. It was further pleaded that Smt. Savitri Devi unfortunately expired on 16.01.1997 followed by the demise of Late Lt. Col. Hawa Singh. It was also pleaded that the appellant/plaintiff was not the wife of Late Lt. Col. Hawa Singh, since there was no proof of a valid marriage. Respondent No.1 further contended that all the children of Late Lt. Col. Hawa Singh from his first wife, Smt. Savitri Devi, were not appellant, and the decree was accordingly obtained behind their back by practising fraud upon the Court. The learned First Appellate Court, vide judgment and decree dated 15.01.2025, allowed the appeal, holding that the civil suit filed by the aintiff was not maintainable, as the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide her matrimonial status. The relevant paragraphs Thus, the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form and the Civil Court does not have the jurisdiction to decide on the matrimonial status of the plaintiff the said relief being barred by virtue of Sections 5, 8 ly Courts Act. The impuged judgment 7 pension in favour of the plaintiff in future also if she Aggrieved thereby, respondent No.1, son of Late Lt. Col. Hawa challenged the judgment and decree sed by the learned Trial Court, having preferred Civil 'Captain Sunil Kumar (Retd.) Vs. . It was pleaded in the said appeal that Late Lt. Col. he said wedlock, the respondent No.1 was born. It was further pleaded that Smt. Savitri Devi unfortunately expired on 16.01.1997 followed by the demise of Late Lt. Col. Hawa Singh. It was also pleaded that the appellant/plaintiff was not the wife of Late Lt. Col. Hawa Singh, since there was no proof the children were not was accordingly obtained behind their back by practising fraud upon the Court. The learned First Appellate Court, vide judgment and decree dated 15.01.2025, allowed the appeal, holding that the civil suit filed by the aintiff was not maintainable, as the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide her matrimonial status. The relevant paragraphs Thus, the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form and the Civil Court does not have the jurisdiction to decide on the matrimonial status of the plaintiff the said relief being barred by virtue of Sections 5, 8 ly Courts Act. The impuged judgment SANJAY GUPTA 2026.07.28 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1421-2025 27. 14. In the humble opinion of this Court, t sought a declaration that she is the Hawa Singh. This is not incidental to the suit; it is the very substratum of the relief claimed. Section 7(1), Explan precisely such a claim, being the validity of a marriage or as to the matrimonial status of any person." Once a Family Court stands established for an area, Section 8 divests th ordinary Civil Court of jurisdiction over any matter falling within Section 7, and Section 20 confers upon the Act an overriding effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any other law. Read conjointly, these provisions preclude a Civil C not the legally wedded wife of another. This position stands settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SC 2161, wherein it was held that it makes no difference whether 25 (O&M) and decree of the Learned Trial Court is against the provisions of law and is not sustainable and is hereby set aside. 27. As a sequel to the discussion above the opinion that the impugned judgme 28.02.2023 is against the settled legal provisions for the reasons aforementioned and is thus liable to be set aside. The findings of the Learned Trial Court on issues No.1 to 6 are hereby reversed and the suit of the plaintiff is dismi with no order as to costs. The appeal stands allowed with no order as to costs. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. Trial Court Record alongwith copy of this judgment be sent back and appeal file be consigned to record room after due compliance.” In the humble opinion of this Court, t sought a declaration that she is the "legal wedded wife" Hawa Singh. This is not incidental to the suit; it is the very substratum of the relief claimed. Section 7(1), Explanation (b) of the 1984 precisely such a claim, being "a suit or proceeding for a declaration as to the validity of a marriage or as to the matrimonial status of any person." Once a Family Court stands established for an area, Section 8 divests th ordinary Civil Court of jurisdiction over any matter falling within Section 7, and Section 20 confers upon the Act an overriding effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any other law. Read conjointly, these provisions preclude a Civil Court from adjudicating whether a person is or is not the legally wedded wife of another. This position stands settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balram Yadav v. Fulmaniya Yadav, AIR 2016 , wherein it was held that it makes no difference whether and decree of the Learned Trial Court is against the provisions of law and is not sustainable and is hereby set As a sequel to the discussion above-stated, this court is of the opinion that the impugned judgment and decree dated 28.02.2023 is against the settled legal provisions for the reasons aforementioned and is thus liable to be set aside. The findings of the Learned Trial Court on issues No.1 to 6 are hereby reversed and the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with no order as to costs. The appeal stands allowed with no order as to costs. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. Trial Court Record alongwith copy of this judgment be sent back and appeal file be consigned to record room after due In the humble opinion of this Court, the plaintiff's own prayer "legal wedded wife" of Late Lt. Col. Hawa Singh. This is not incidental to the suit; it is the very substratum of ation (b) of the 1984 Act covers "a suit or proceeding for a declaration as to the validity of a marriage or as to the matrimonial status of any person." Once a Family Court stands established for an area, Section 8 divests th ordinary Civil Court of jurisdiction over any matter falling within Section 7, and Section 20 confers upon the Act an overriding effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any other law. Read conjointly, these ourt from adjudicating whether a person is or is not the legally wedded wife of another. This position stands settled by the Balram Yadav v. Fulmaniya Yadav, AIR 2016 , wherein it was held that it makes no difference whether the relief 8 and decree of the Learned Trial Court is against the provisions of law and is not sustainable and is hereby set stated, this court is of nt and decree dated 28.02.2023 is against the settled legal provisions for the reasons aforementioned and is thus liable to be set aside. The findings of the Learned Trial Court on issues No.1 to 6 ssed with no order as to costs. The appeal stands allowed with no order as to costs. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. Trial Court Record alongwith copy of this judgment be sent back and appeal file be consigned to record room after due he plaintiff's own prayer of Late Lt. Col. Hawa Singh. This is not incidental to the suit; it is the very substratum of covers "a suit or proceeding for a declaration as to the validity of a marriage or as to the matrimonial status of any person." Once a Family Court stands established for an area, Section 8 divests the ordinary Civil Court of jurisdiction over any matter falling within Section 7, and Section 20 confers upon the Act an overriding effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any other law. Read conjointly, these ourt from adjudicating whether a person is or is not the legally wedded wife of another. This position stands settled by the Balram Yadav v. Fulmaniya Yadav, AIR 2016 the relief SANJAY GUPTA 2026.07.28 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1421-2025 sought is affirmative or negative; so long as the declaration concerns matrimonial status, jurisdiction to grant it vests exclusively in the Family Court. The relevant extract is reproduced hereunder: “7. 15. Moreover, t (supra) by the counsel for the appellant is misplaced. The relevant observations are reproduced as under: 25 (O&M) sought is affirmative or negative; so long as the declaration concerns matrimonial status, jurisdiction to grant it vests exclusively in the Family The relevant extract is reproduced hereunder: Under Section 7(1) Explanation (b), a 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.” Moreover, the reliance placed upon by the counsel for the appellant is misplaced. The relevant observations are reproduced as under:- "8. The above would indicate that the dispute between the parties is purely a civil dispute and has no bea on any dispute within a family which needs to be resolved by a special procedure as provided under the Act. No issue with regard to the institution of marriage and the need to preserve the same also arises in the present case. That apart, the dispute between the parties can only be resolved on the basis of evidence to be tendered by the parties, admissibility of which has to be adjudged within the four corners of the provisions of the Indian Evidence sought is affirmative or negative; so long as the declaration concerns matrimonial status, jurisdiction to grant it vests exclusively in the Family The relevant extract is reproduced hereunder:- 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 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 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 he reliance placed upon R. Kasthuri’s case by the counsel for the appellant is misplaced. The relevant The above would indicate that the dispute between the parties is purely a civil dispute and has no bearing on any dispute within a family which needs to be resolved by a special procedure as provided under the Act. No issue with regard to the institution of marriage and the need to preserve the same also arises in the present case. That apart, the dispute between the parties can only be resolved on the basis of evidence to be tendered by the parties, admissibility of which has to be adjudged within the four corners of the provisions of the Indian Evidence 9 sought is affirmative or negative; so long as the declaration concerns matrimonial status, jurisdiction to grant it vests exclusively in the Family 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 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 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 ’s case by the counsel for the appellant is misplaced. The relevant The above would indicate that the dispute between ring on any dispute within a family which needs to be resolved by a special procedure as provided under the Act. No issue with regard to the institution of marriage and the need to preserve the same also arises in the present case. That apart, the dispute between the parties can only be resolved on the basis of evidence to be tendered by the parties, admissibility of which has to be adjudged within the four corners of the provisions of the Indian Evidence SANJAY GUPTA 2026.07.28 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1421-2025 15.1. In R. Kasthuri’s case having been married to the deceased at different points in time, were contesting inter se over legal heirship and p Court held the dispute to be a purely civil one, observing in terms that issue with regard to the institution of marriage and the need to preserve the same" arose therein. The present case stands on a different footing altogether. Here, the very factum and validity of the appellant's marriage with Late Lt. Col. Hawa Singh forms the crux of the challenge raised by respondent No.1. assailed, the ratio in the finding of the learned First Appellate Court on the question of jurisdiction cannot, therefore, be said to be erroneous. 16. Since the suit fails at t it is unnecessary to enter upon the disputed questions of fact concerning the genuineness of the marriage authority which issued her marriage certificate. Should the appellan choose to pursue those questions, it is for the adjudicate the same in accordance with law. 17. In view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, finding no illegality or perversity with the findings recorded by the Appellate Court 25 (O&M) Act, 1872. In such a proceeding it would be clearly wrong to deprive the parties of the benefit of the services of counsels.” R. Kasthuri’s case (supra), two women, each accepted as having been married to the deceased at different points in time, were contesting inter se over legal heirship and p Court held the dispute to be a purely civil one, observing in terms that issue with regard to the institution of marriage and the need to preserve the arose therein. The present case stands on a different footing altogether. Here, the very factum and validity of the appellant's marriage with Late Lt. Col. Hawa Singh forms the crux of the challenge raised by respondent No.1. Since, in the present case, t assailed, the ratio in Balram Yadav's case (supra) the finding of the learned First Appellate Court on the question of jurisdiction cannot, therefore, be said to be erroneous. Since the suit fails at the very threshold for want of jurisdiction, it is unnecessary to enter upon the disputed questions of fact concerning the genuineness of the marriage of appellant authority which issued her marriage certificate. Should the appellan choose to pursue those questions, it is for the adjudicate the same in accordance with law. In view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, finding no illegality or perversity with the findings recorded by the Appellate Court, there being no misreading or misinterpretation of the Act, 1872. In such a proceeding it would be clearly wrong to deprive the parties of the benefit of the services of counsels.” , two women, each accepted as having been married to the deceased at different points in time, were contesting inter se over legal heirship and property. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held the dispute to be a purely civil one, observing in terms that "no issue with regard to the institution of marriage and the need to preserve the arose therein. The present case stands on a different footing altogether. Here, the very factum and validity of the appellant's marriage with Late Lt. Col. Hawa Singh forms the crux of the challenge raised by Since, in the present case, the marriage itself stands Balram Yadav's case (supra) squarely applies, and the finding of the learned First Appellate Court on the question of jurisdiction cannot, therefore, be said to be erroneous. he very threshold for want of jurisdiction, it is unnecessary to enter upon the disputed questions of fact concerning of appellant or the competence of the authority which issued her marriage certificate. Should the appellan choose to pursue those questions, it is for the learned Family Court to adjudicate the same in accordance with law. In view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, finding no illegality or perversity with the findings recorded by the learned Fi , there being no misreading or misinterpretation of the 10 Act, 1872. In such a proceeding it would be clearly wrong to deprive the parties of the benefit of the , two women, each accepted as having been married to the deceased at different points in time, were roperty. The Hon'ble Supreme "no issue with regard to the institution of marriage and the need to preserve the arose therein. The present case stands on a different footing altogether. Here, the very factum and validity of the appellant's marriage with Late Lt. Col. Hawa Singh forms the crux of the challenge raised by he marriage itself stands squarely applies, and the finding of the learned First Appellate Court on the question of he very threshold for want of jurisdiction, it is unnecessary to enter upon the disputed questions of fact concerning of the authority which issued her marriage certificate. Should the appellant Family Court to In view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, finding no learned First , there being no misreading or misinterpretation of the SANJAY GUPTA 2026.07.28 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1421-2025 pleadings and the material available on record, the present appeal being devoid of merits is thus, 18. This order may not prejudice the rights of the parties in case they approach the Family Court for redressal of their grievances. 19. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 23.07.2026 sanjay Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 25 (O&M) pleadings and the material available on record, the present appeal being devoid of merits is thus, dismissed. This order may not prejudice the rights of the parties in case approach the Family Court for redressal of their grievances. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable pleadings and the material available on record, the present appeal being This order may not prejudice the rights of the parties in case approach the Family Court for redressal of their grievances. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No 11 pleadings and the material available on record, the present appeal being This order may not prejudice the rights of the parties in case SANJAY GUPTA 2026.07.28 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document