Family Court can entertain suit to declare woman a single parent: Manipur High Court

The Manipur High Court recently ruled that a family court has the jurisdiction to declare that a woman is a 'single unmarried mother’ on the basis of evidence before it..A division bench of Acting Chief Justice MV Muralidaran and Justice A Guneshwar Sharma said it was well settled that where special courts or tribunals are set up and disputes arise regarding their jurisdiction, the attempt should be to confer jurisdiction on them rather than to exclude it.“The declaration of the appellant as single unmarried mother can be granted only based upon the documentary proof and evidences to be produced by the parties,” the Court ruled..The judgment was passed on an appeal moved by a 61-year-old woman whose suit was earlier held to be non-maintainable by the family court.The High Court relied on Explanation (b) to Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act to hold that a suit or a proceeding for a declaration of validity of both marriage and matrimonial status of a person is within the jurisdiction of the family court.“On a thorough reading of Explanation (e) to Section 7 of the Family Court Act, the suit of the appellant is very well maintainable before the Family Court,” it held.The Court also held that the suit filed by the woman lies within the "exclusive jurisdiction" of the family court since under Section 8 of the Family Courts Act, those jurisdictions covered under Section 7 are excluded from the purview of the jurisdiction of the civil courts. .The family Court had relied upon Renubala Moharana v. Mina Mohanty while rejecting the suit. However, the High Court noted that relief sought in Renubala case was entirely different.“In Renubala Moharana, supra, a declaratory relief as regards the illegitimacy of the child was sought and the family court as well as the High Court held that such relief cannot be granted, which was affirmed by the apex court. In other words, the relief prayed in Renubala Moharana, supra, is regarding guardianship,” the Court noted..The woman was an employee of the State medical department and was in a live-in relationship with a doctor. She gave birth to a daughter in 1984 and a son in 1994.When she retired from service in 2022, the authorities demanded a joint photograph of hers and her husband. She instead submitted a photo of her and her children, saying she does not have a husband. The authorities refused to process the pension calling her statement “absurd”.In 2022, the woman filed a suit before the family court seeking a declaration that she is a single unmarried woman. The family court held that it does not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit as there was no marital relationship between her and her former live-in partner..Challenging the decision, her counsel argued before the High Court that matrimonial status of “never married“ is part of “matrimonial status” and thus family court has the jurisdiction to entertain the suit under the Family Courts Act.“The law in India recognizes family of single parent (either of man or woman) having children. A family of single mother or father having child from the live-in-relationship or adoption or otherwise,” the counsel argued.The High Court said it was for the woman’s live-in partner to appear before the family court and say there was no relationship between her and him. However, it noted that despite service, he had not appeared..It further noted that the children of the women had appeared before the family court and filed an affidavit that their father is Hindu by religion and could not have married their mother as he was already married and had a child.“In the case of illegitimate children, the sole caregiver is one of the parents. This is not a case of seeking direction for guardianship. The children are grown up – one married and the other is a student. The appellant is a retired Government servant whose pension papers are not processed for want of photographs of the family members,” it added.Hence, it set aside the family court order and remanded the matter back to it with a direction to proceed with the suit in accordance with law. Advocate N Mahendra represented the petitioner[Read Judgment]