Supreme Court Upholds Right to Sue for Declaration of Marital Status: Samar Kumar Roy vs. Jharna Bera (2017)

Date of the Judgment: 05 September 2017

Citation: (2017) INSC 790

Judges: Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Can a legal heir pursue a suit for declaration of marital status after the original plaintiff’s death? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving a dispute over the validity of a marriage. The core issue was whether the deceased plaintiff’s mother could continue a suit seeking a declaration that the defendant was not the legally married wife of the plaintiff. The two-judge bench, composed of Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The case originated from a Title Suit filed in January 2006 by Samar Kumar Roy against Jharna Bera. Samar Kumar Roy sought a declaratory decree under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and a perpetual injunction under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The plaintiff, Samar Kumar Roy, claimed that Jharna Bera’s father, a senior employee in the same directorate as him, had coerced him into a sham marriage through blackmail. He stated that the marriage was registered under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, but no Hindu marriage ceremonies were performed, and the marriage was never consummated. The suit sought a declaration that Jharna Bera was not legally his wife and an injunction restraining her from claiming to be his wife.

Jharna Bera filed a written statement denying all allegations. While the suit was pending, Samar Kumar Roy died on 10th October 2012. Subsequently, on 19th December 2012, his mother applied to be added as his legal representative under Order 22 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This application was allowed on 17th April 2013. However, the High Court set aside this order on 15th October 2015, ruling that the right to sue did not survive in favor of the plaintiff’s mother after his death.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The initial suit was filed in a civil court. After the death of the plaintiff, the trial court allowed the substitution of the plaintiff’s mother as the legal representative. The High Court, however, reversed this decision, stating that the right to sue did not survive the plaintiff’s death. This led to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which states:

“Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying, or interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any further relief: Provided that no court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so.”

The court also considered the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Special Marriage Act, 1954, which deal with the annulment and dissolution of marriages. Additionally, Sections 7 and 8 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, which define the jurisdiction of Family Courts, were examined.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Samar Kumar Roy’s Mother):

• The suit was not, in substance, a petition for dissolution of marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, or the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
• It was a suit filed under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, for declaration of a legal character, which is maintainable.
• The 59th Law Commission Report of 1974 supports the view that a third party can question the validity of a marriage in a civil suit.
• The right to sue for declaration of legal character survives the death of the plaintiff and can be continued by the legal representative.

Respondent’s Arguments (Jharna Bera):

• The suit was essentially for annulment of marriage and falls under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, or the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
• The Civil Court’s jurisdiction is barred under Sections 7 and 8 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
• The suit was time-barred under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as it was filed more than three years after the alleged marriage.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The key issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether a suit filed under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, for declaration of legal character is maintainable at the behest of a legal representative of a deceased plaintiff.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• 59th Law Commission Report (1974): The Law Commission’s view that third parties can question the validity of a marriage in a civil suit was cited.
• Krishna Pal vs. Ashok Kumar Pal (1982) 2 Cal LJ 366: The Calcutta High Court held that a suit for declaration of no marriage is maintainable in the Munsif’s court.
• Tapash Kumar Moitra vs. Pratima Roy Chowdhury (1985) 89 CWN 671: The Calcutta High Court reiterated that a suit for cancellation of marriage registration is maintainable.
• Sasanka Sekhar Basu vs. Ms. Dipika Roy AIR 1993 Cal 203: The Calcutta High Court held that a suit for declaration of void marriage is not a petition under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
• Harmohan Senapati vs. Kamala Kumari Senapati AIR 1979 Orissa 51: The Orissa High Court took a similar view in a suit filed by a first wife.
• Smt. Ram Pyaari vs. Dharam Das & Ors. AIR 1984 All 147: The Allahabad High Court took a similar view.
• Smt. Lajya Devi vs. Smt. Kamala Devi AIR 1993 J&K 31: The Jammu and Kashmir High Court took a similar view.
• Dhulabhai vs. Madhya Pradesh (1968) 3 SCR 662: The Supreme Court laid down principles regarding the exclusion of civil court jurisdiction.
• Smt. Yallawwa vs. Smt Shantavva (1997) 11 SCC 159: The Supreme Court held that personal causes of action die with the person, but those affecting proprietary rights and socio-legal status do not.

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that a suit for declaration of legal character under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, is maintainable by the legal representative of a deceased plaintiff. The court reasoned that such a suit is distinct from a petition for annulment or dissolution of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, or the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The court also found that the jurisdiction of the civil court is not barred by the Family Courts Act, 1984, in such cases.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• 59th Law Commission Report (1974): Cited to support the view that third parties can question marriage validity in civil suits.
• Krishna Pal vs. Ashok Kumar Pal (1982) 2 Cal LJ 366: *[CITATION]* Followed to support the maintainability of a suit for declaration of no marriage.
• Tapash Kumar Moitra vs. Pratima Roy Chowdhury (1985) 89 CWN 671: *[CITATION]* Followed to support the maintainability of a suit for cancellation of marriage registration.
• Sasanka Sekhar Basu vs. Ms. Dipika Roy AIR 1993 Cal 203: *[CITATION]* Followed to support the view that a suit for declaration of void marriage is not a petition under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
• Harmohan Senapati vs. Kamala Kumari Senapati AIR 1979 Orissa 51: *[CITATION]* Followed to support a similar view in a suit filed by a first wife.
• Smt. Ram Pyaari vs. Dharam Das & Ors. AIR 1984 All 147: *[CITATION]* Followed to support a similar view.
• Smt. Lajya Devi vs. Smt. Kamala Devi AIR 1993 J&K 31: *[CITATION]* Followed to support a similar view.
• Dhulabhai vs. Madhya Pradesh (1968) 3 SCR 662: *[CITATION]* Cited to determine whether civil court jurisdiction is expressly or impliedly barred.
• Smt. Yallawwa vs. Smt Shantavva (1997) 11 SCC 159: *[CITATION]* Cited to support that causes of action affecting socio-legal status do not die with the person.

The Court emphasized that “a suit for declaration as to legal character which includes the matrimonial status of parties to a marriage when it comes to a marriage which allegedly has never taken place either de jure or de facto, it is clear that the civil court’s jurisdiction to determine the aforesaid legal character is not barred either expressly or impliedly by any law.”

The Court also noted that, “Save and except the personal cause of action which dies with the deceased on the principle of actio personalis moritur cum persona i.e. a personal cause of action dies with the person, all the rest of the causes of action which have an impact on proprietary rights and socio-legal status of the parties cannot be said to have died with such a person.”

Further, the court stated that, “the examination of the remedies provided and the scheme of the Hindu Marriage Act and of the Special Marriage Act show that the statute creates special rights or liabilities and provides for determination of rights relating to marriage. The Acts do not lay down that all questions relating to the said rights and liabilities shall be determined only by the Tribunals which are constituted under the said Act.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the distinction between a suit for declaration of legal character and a petition for annulment or dissolution of marriage. The court emphasized that the suit filed by Samar Kumar Roy was not seeking to dissolve or annul a marriage but rather to declare that a valid marriage never existed. This distinction was crucial in determining the maintainability of the suit by the legal representative.

The Court also relied on the principle that causes of action affecting proprietary rights and socio-legal status do not die with the person. This principle allowed the court to conclude that the right to sue for declaration of marital status survives the death of the plaintiff and can be continued by the legal representative.

The court’s reasoning also reflected a reluctance to exclude the jurisdiction of civil courts unless such exclusion is explicitly stated in the law. This principle ensured that individuals have access to civil courts to resolve disputes concerning their legal status.

The Court also took into consideration the 59th Law Commission Report, which supported the view that third parties should be allowed to question the validity of a marriage in a civil suit. This was an important factor in the court’s decision to allow the legal representative to continue the suit.

Key Takeaways

• A suit for declaration of legal character under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, is distinct from a petition for annulment or dissolution of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, or the Special Marriage Act, 1954.
• The right to sue for declaration of legal character survives the death of the plaintiff and can be continued by the legal representative.
• The jurisdiction of civil courts to determine the legal character of a marriage is not barred by the Family Courts Act, 1984, in cases where the validity of the marriage itself is in question.
• Third parties can question the validity of a marriage in a civil suit.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the respondent to file an affidavit disclosing all amounts received due to her alleged marriage with the deceased plaintiff. The respondent was then directed to pay 50% of the total amount to the appellant within eight weeks.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a suit for declaration of legal character, specifically regarding marital status, is maintainable by the legal representative of a deceased plaintiff under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. This clarifies that such suits are distinct from petitions for annulment or dissolution of marriage and that civil courts retain jurisdiction in these matters. This ruling reinforces the principle that causes of action affecting socio-legal status survive the death of the plaintiff.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Samar Kumar Roy vs. Jharna Bera clarifies the legal position on the maintainability of suits for declaration of marital status by legal representatives. The court upheld the right of the deceased plaintiff’s mother to continue the suit, emphasizing that such suits are distinct from those seeking annulment or dissolution of marriage. This decision ensures that individuals can seek legal recourse to determine their marital status, even after the death of the original plaintiff, and that civil courts retain jurisdiction in such matters.

Category

Parent category: Civil Law

• Child category: Specific Relief Act, 1963
• Child category: Section 34, Specific Relief Act, 1963
• Child category: Family Courts Act, 1984

Parent category: Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

• Child category: Special Marriage Act, 1954

FAQ

Q: Can a legal heir continue a suit for declaration of marital status after the death of the original plaintiff?

A: Yes, the Supreme Court has held that a legal heir can continue a suit for declaration of marital status under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, after the death of the original plaintiff. This is because such a suit is considered a matter of legal status and not a personal cause of action that dies with the person.

Q: What is the difference between a suit for declaration of marital status and a petition for annulment or dissolution of marriage?

A: A suit for declaration of marital status seeks to declare whether a valid marriage exists or not. It does not seek to end a marriage. On the other hand, a petition for annulment or dissolution of marriage seeks to end a marriage that is legally recognized, either by declaring it void from the beginning or by dissolving it.

Q: Does the Family Courts Act, 1984, bar the jurisdiction of civil courts in cases of declaration of marital status?

A: No, the Supreme Court has clarified that the Family Courts Act, 1984, does not bar the jurisdiction of civil courts in cases where the validity of the marriage itself is in question. The Family Courts Act, 1984, applies to suits between parties to a marriage seeking annulment or dissolution, not to suits seeking a declaration of legal status.

Q: Can a third party question the validity of a marriage in a civil suit?

A: Yes, the Supreme Court has recognized that third parties can question the validity of a marriage in a civil suit. This is supported by the 59th Law Commission Report, which states that third parties with an interest in the matter should have the right to challenge the validity of a marriage.

Q: What was the key factor in the Supreme Court’s decision in this case?

A: The key factor was the distinction between a suit for declaration of legal character and a petition for annulment or dissolution of marriage. The Court emphasized that the suit was not seeking to dissolve a marriage but to declare that a valid marriage never existed. This distinction was crucial in determining the maintainability of the suit by the legal representative.