Civil Judge (Junior Division) Lacks Jurisdiction To Grant Decree Of Divorce Or Talaq; District Court Competent Authority In Absence Of Family Courts: Gauhati High Court
The High Court held that a Civil Judge (Junior Division) has no jurisdiction to dissolve a marriage or confirm talaq under the guise of a declaratory suit, and that matrimonial reliefs relating to dissolution of marriage can only be granted by the Family Court or, in its absence, the District Court.
The Gauhati High Court held that a Civil Judge (Junior Division) is not competent to grant a decree dissolving a marriage or to validate talaq, and that such relief cannot be secured indirectly through a declaratory suit framed under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
The Court was hearing a regular second appeal arising from a matrimonial dispute, challenging the judgment of the lower appellate court which had set aside a decree passed by a Civil Judge (Junior Division) declaring dissolution of marriage by talaq on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
A Bench of Justice Mitali Thakuria examined whether, in the absence of a Family Court, a Civil Judge (Junior Division) could entertain a suit seeking a declaration of validity of talaq and effectively dissolve the marriage, and held: “in absence of the Family Court in the District, the only competent authority to deal with such matrimonial matter is by the District Judge or the Civil Court. But the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Hailakandi had no such authority or power to pass any decree of divorce/talaq”.
The appellant was represented by Advocate M.J. Quadir, while the respondent was represented by Advocate N. Haque.
Background
The appellant-husband had instituted a matrimonial suit before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hailakandi, seeking a declaration that the marriage between the parties stood dissolved by talaq, and further seeking confirmation of written talaq notices issued on three different dates.
The trial court proceeded ex parte against the respondent-wife and, upon recording evidence, passed a decree declaring that the marriage stood dissolved by talaq and confirmed the written divorce executed by the appellant.
Aggrieved by the decree, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hailakandi. The appellate court allowed the appeal and set aside the decree, holding that the Civil Judge (Junior Division) lacked jurisdiction to grant matrimonial reliefs relating to the dissolution of marriage, and declared the trial court decree to be a nullity. The appellate court, however, granted liberty to the parties to approach the appropriate forum.
Challenging the said decision, the appellant approached the Gauhati High Court by way of a regular second appeal.
Court’s Observation
The High Court examined the scope of jurisdiction under the Family Courts Act, 1984, and reiterated that suits or proceedings seeking dissolution of marriage, decree of divorce, or other matrimonial reliefs fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court, and in its absence, the District Court.
“It is a settled law that the family disputes, the dissolution of marriage, decree of divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act or the Special Marriage Act can only be entertained by the Family Court under Sections 7 & 8 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 and in the absence of the Family Court, the District Court can examine the matters”, the Court underscored.
The Court further clarified that “in view of Section 2(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, read with Sections 3/17 of General Clauses Act, 1897, the 'District Court' with family jurisdiction would be a Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, i.e. the learned District”.
The Court noted the appellant’s contention that the suit before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) was merely a declaratory suit seeking validation of talaq and not a prayer for divorce. However, upon examining the decree passed by the trial court, the High Court observed that the Civil Judge (Junior Division) had, in fact, declared the dissolution of marriage and confirmed talaq under judicial seal, thereby granting substantive matrimonial relief.
The Court held that such relief went far beyond a simple declaration of legal character under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. It was observed that, in substance, the suit sought and resulted in a decree of divorce, which a Civil Judge (Junior Division) was not empowered to grant.
The Court further held that the lower appellate court was justified in deciding the appeal solely on the question of jurisdiction without entering into the merits of the case, once it found that the decree passed by the trial court was a nullity.
Conclusion
Upholding the judgment of the lower appellate court, the High Court dismissed the regular second appeal and affirmed the liberty granted to the parties to approach the appropriate forum for seeking matrimonial reliefs.
Cause Title: JPC v. BNYC (Neutral Citation: 2026:GAU-AS:304)
Appearances
Appellant: M.J. Quadir, Advocate, with A.K. Hannan, Advocate
Respondent: N. Haque, Advocate