1 CGHC010083522026 2026:CGHC:34579 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 70 of 2026 1 - Rashida Parveen W/o Moh. Iltaf Aged About 31 Years Caste Muslim, R/o Village Bilaitangar, Police Station Patthalgaon, District- Jashpur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - Moh. Iltaf S/o Moh. Nesar Aged About 40 Years Caste Muslim R/o Village Kunkuri, Ajad Mohalla, Police Station Kunkuri, District- Jashpur, (C.G.) 2 - Amit Goyal S/o Late Mange Ram Goyal Aged About 45 Years Caste Agrawal R/o Koyla Factory Gali, Patthalgaon, Tahsil And Police Station Patthalgaon, District- Jashpur, (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title, as taken from CIS) For Applicant For Respondent No.1 : : Mr. Shashank Upadhyay, Advocate Mr. Raj Kumar Sahu, Advocate. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 06/08/2026 1. Heard on admission. 2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2026.08.10 17:12:45 +0530 2 3. The present civil revision has been preferred by the applicant under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC), challenging the order dated 02.01.2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kunkuri, District Jashpur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.A/47/2024 (Mohd. Iltaf v. Rashida Parveen and Another), whereby the application filed by appellant- defendant No.1 under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the CPC has been rejected. 4. The brief facts of the case are that marriage of the appellant with the respondent No.1 was solemnized on 21.02.2018 as per Muslim rites and customs. As their marital relationship was not cordial, respondent No.1 filed a civil suit before the learned Civil Judge, Class-1, Senior Division, Kunkuri, District Jashpur (CG) seeking declaration of nullity of Nikah (marriage). Upon entering appearance in the aforesaid civil suit, the appellant-defendant No.1 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC, contending that the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kunkuri has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit, as the same was barred by law, hence it be rejected. The said application was rejected by the learned trial Court vide impugned order, which has been assailed in instant revision. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1984”) has been enacted to decide disputes arising between husband and wife, and exclusive jurisdiction in such matters has been vested with 3 the Family Courts sanctioned in the respective districts. He further submits that where no Family Court has been sanctioned for a particular area, the jurisdiction is exercisable by the concerned District Judge. Learned counsel further submits that under Section 8 of the Act, 1984, Family Courts have exclusive jurisdiction and Section 20 provides the overriding effect over all other laws. Therefore, the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kunkuri had no jurisdiction to decide the suit filed by respondent No.1 (plaintiff). It is further submitted that, rejection of the application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC filed by the appellant- defendant No.1 by the learned trial Court is against the provisions of law. Hence, he prays that the present revision may be allowed by setting aside the impugned order passed by the trial Court. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, who is main contesting party, fairly concedes the aforesaid facts. However, he prays that since the civil suit filed by respondent No.1 is not maintainable before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kunkuri, District Jashpur, liberty may be granted to respondent No.1 (plaintiff) to file a divorce petition before the concerned Family Court. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Section 7 of the Act, 1984 deals with the jurisdiction of the Family Courts, which reads as follows:- 4 “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 circumstances arising out of a marital relationship; (e) a suit or proceeding for a declaration as to the legitimacy of any person; 5 (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. (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.” 9. Section 8 of the Act, 1984 deals with the exclusion of jurisdiction, which reads as follows:- “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 6 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.” 10. Section 20 of the Act, 1984 provides for overriding effect of the Act on other laws or instruments having the effect of law. The said Section reads 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.” 11. Under Section 7(1) Explanation (b) of the Act, 1984, 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 7 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 this Court has taken, since the Act, 1984, has an overriding effect on other laws. 12. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kunkuri, District Jashpur (CG) is not sustainable in the eyes of law and, therefore, deserves to be set- aside/quashed. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby quashed. Having considered the prayer made by counsel appearing for respondent No.1, liberty is left with the respondent No.1 to file appropriate suit/case before the concerned Family Court for redressal of his grievance, if so advised. 13. Accordingly, the present civil revision stands disposed of. 14. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Rukhsar