In a significant judgment, the Orissa High Court has ruled that Family Courts are not strictly bound by the Limitation Act, 1963, but are instead governed by broader principles of delay and laches, especially in matters related to marital status and family rights.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Bibhu Prasad Routray and Justice Chittaranjan Dash emphasized that disputes involving marital status are a "continuing cause of action", and therefore, cannot be dismissed simply because a specific period has passed.
“A party seeking to establish or refute marital status cannot be barred from seeking such a declaration merely because a certain period has elapsed, particularly when the dispute has long-standing consequences for inheritance, legitimacy, and personal law rights,” the Court stated.
Case Background
The case began when the respondent filed a civil proceeding before the Family Court in Bhubaneswar, seeking a declaration that she was the legally wedded wife of Late Kailash Chandra Mohanty and hence, his rightful legal heir. She stated that their marriage occurred on 5th June 1966, following Hindu customs, and they cohabited as husband and wife.
Read also: Police Dog Cannot Testify In Court, Handlers' Evidence Requires Corroboration: Orissa High Court
She contested that the appellant, who also claimed marital rights, was merely an associate of the deceased and had no valid marital relationship with him.
The Family Court initially ruled in favour of the respondent on 29th October 2021, recognizing her as the legal wife and heir, thereby entitling her to the deceased’s ancestral and self-acquired properties.
Read also: Orissa High Court Declares Marriage Beyond Repair: Grants Divorce in Case of Mental Cruelty
This decision was challenged by the appellant before the High Court, on the grounds that she was not given a fair opportunity to present her case. The High Court accepted that there was a reasonable cause for her absence, and held that the Family Court’s ruling was made without affording her a proper hearing.
The High Court then set aside the previous judgment and remitted the matter back to the Family Court for fresh adjudication. An interim order was passed to share the property’s benefits in a 60:40 ratio, with 60% to the respondent and 40% to the appellant, due to the advanced age of both parties.
Following a fresh hearing, on 12th December 2023, the Family Court again ruled in favour of the respondent, reaffirming her status as the legally wedded wife and heir. This fresh decision led to the appellant filing another matrimonial appeal before the High Court.
The appellant challenged the judgment on two main grounds:
- Jurisdiction – She argued that the Family Court had no authority to adjudicate a dispute about marital status, which should have been handled by a Civil Court under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act.
- Limitation Period – The appellant claimed that the respondent filed her suit after the expiry of the limitation period and did not seek condonation of delay, making the suit time-barred.
To address the jurisdiction issue, the High Court examined Section 7(1)(b) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, which clearly vests the authority in Family Courts to decide matters related to the validity of marriage and marital status.
Further, Section 8 of the same Act excludes Civil Court jurisdiction in such matters, and Section 20 establishes that the Family Courts Act overrides other inconsistent laws.
The Court also referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Balram Yadav v. Fulmaniya Yadav (2016), where it was held:
“A declaration regarding the validity of marriage and marital status falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court under Section 7(1) Explanation (b).”
Based on these provisions and precedents, the High Court dismissed the jurisdictional objection raised by the appellant:
“Once the Family Court's jurisdiction is established, bypassing it undermines the objective of establishing specialised courts for family disputes.”
It rejected the claim that Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act should apply, stating that the Family Courts Act is a special law meant specifically for matrimonial matters.
“The principle of lex specialis derogat legi generali applies here, which means a special law overrides the general one. The Family Courts Act takes precedence over the Specific Relief Act in such matters,” the Court noted.
Regarding limitation, the Court discussed Article 58 of the Limitation Act, which prescribes a three-year period for declaratory suits from the time the right to sue accrues.
The appellant argued that the right arose on 12th July 2012 (the deceased’s death), and since the suit was filed on 24th July 2017, it should be barred by limitation.
However, the Court clarified that strict application of limitation laws is not warranted in such cases. It relied on Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act, which excludes time spent in good faith in pursuing proceedings in a court that lacked jurisdiction.
In this case, the respondent first approached the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and later filed a petition before the High Court. As a result, significant time was consumed pursuing the matter diligently, albeit in the wrong forum.
“Section 14(2) provides relief to parties who have acted in good faith. This principle has been consistently upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court,” the Court explained.
Moreover, Section 29(3) of the Limitation Act, when read with Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, makes it clear that Family Courts are not bound by the rigid limitations.
“The Family Court’s proceedings are governed by the broader principles of delay and laches rather than fixed limitation periods,” the Court added.
Additionally, the continuing nature of the dispute—regarding marital status—meant that the right to sue did not extinguish over time.
“The Respondent's right to assert her marital status is fundamental to her inheritance and legal rights. As long as the status remains contested, the cause of action continues,” the Court said.
After considering all aspects, the High Court held that the Family Court acted within its jurisdiction and that the suit was not time-barred.
As a result, the High Court dismissed the matrimonial appeal, upholding the Family Court’s decision in favour of the respondent.
Case Title: Smt. Sandhya Rani Sahoo @ Mohanty v. Smt. Anusaya Mohanty
Case No: MATA No. 04 of 2024
Date of Judgment: April 02, 2025
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Banshidhar Baug, Senior Advocate
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Bibekananda Bhuyan, Senior Advocate; Mr. S.S. Bhuyan, Advocate
