1 CGHC010266552026 2026:CGHC:30805 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 898 of 2026 R. K. Gupta Alias Raj Kishor Gupta Son Of Late Dadan Prasad Gupta, Aged About 40 Years Resident Of House No. 29, Royal Ward Kumhari, Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus Smt. Uma Banchhor Wife Of R. K. Gupta Alias Raj Kishor Gupta (Wrongly Mentioned As Dinesh Verma In Annexure A-1), Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Pragati Nagar Street - B, Thana Newai, District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Kumar Tiwari, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.) Order on Board 20/07/2026 1. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 16.04.2026 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg in Civil Suit No. CS-A/45/2026 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the non-applicant before the learned Family Court, Durg where the SUMIT KUMAR Digitally signed by SUMIT KUMAR 2 present respondent is prosecuting an application declaring that she is not the wife of the present petitioner and the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2025 has been obtained on the fraud and the decree dated 29.10.2025 be declared as null and void. 3. He would further submit that earlier the petitioner had filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the learned Family Court, Durg where an ex-parte decree has been passed in favour of the petitioner vide judgment and decree dated 29.10.2025, thereafter, the petitioner prosecuting an application for the aforesaid declaration in which the petitioner has filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC and raised an objection regarding maintainability of the application filed by her and the said application has been rejected by the learned Family Court holding that the application filed by the respondent-wife is maintainable. He would further submit that if the respondent is having any grievance against the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2025, the respondent should have filed an appeal before the competent forum against the said ex-parte judgment and decree, therefore, the rejection of the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 suffers from perversity and jurisdictional error and the same is liable to be set aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the document annexed with the petition. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that the application filed by the respondent-wife for declaration of her marital status as well as declaring the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2025 as null and void, is not maintainable before the learned Family Court and the respondent 3 is required to challenge the same before the appellate forum. Section 7 of the Family Courts Act deals with the jurisdiction of the Family Court to entertain the suits/applications which is necessary to be notice here, which reads 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) a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage for a decree of nullity of marriage (declaring the marriage to be null and void or, as the case may be, annulling the marriage) or restitution of conjugal rights or judicial separation or dissolution of marriage; (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) a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage with respect to the property of the parties or of either of them; (d) a suit or proceeding for an order or injunction in circumstance arising out of a marital relationship; (e) a suit or proceeding for a declaration as to the legitimacy of any person; (f) a suit or proceeding for maintenance; (g) a suit or proceeding in relation to the guardianship of the person or the custody of, or access to, any minor. 4 (2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a Family Court shall also have and exercise— (a) the jurisdiction exercisable by a Magistrate of the first class under Chapter IX (relating to order for maintenance of wife, children and parents) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974); and (b) such other jurisdiction as may be conferred on it by any other enactment. 6. From perusal of the application filed by the respondent before the learned Family Court, Durg (Annexure P-5), it transpires that the respondent is prosecuting her application before the learned Family Court for declaration of her marital status as she is not the wife of the petitioner and the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2025 be declared as null and void as the same has been obtained on the fraud. From the jurisdiction empowered upon the Family Courts under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the application filed by the respondent-wife is very well maintainable before it and can not be dismissed on this ground that the respondent-wife is required to challenge the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2025 before the appellate forum. The learned Family Court has also rejected the application holding that the application filed by the respondent is very well maintainable and the petitioner could not demonstrate any infirmity or perversity in maintaining the application filed by the respondent, I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE Sumit