The Patna High Court has held that the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 have no application to proceedings under the Family Courts Act, 1984 due to the overriding effect conferred by Section 20 of the Family Courts Act. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Dr. Justice Anshuman, delivered this ruling while hearing an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act in a case where the Family Court had declared the marriage between the parties null and void. The appellant had contended, among other grounds, that the Family Court erred in ignoring Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, which deals with the discretionary aspects of granting declarations of status or rights, arguing that because the respondent had not sought relief relating to restoration of conjugal rights, the claim should be barred under the Specific Relief Act.
In its judgment, the High Court examined the relevant statutory framework and noted that Section 20 of the Family Courts Act explicitly stipulates that the provisions of the Family Courts Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any other law for the time being in force. Because the Specific Relief Act was enacted in 1963 and the Family Courts Act was enacted in 1984 with a clear non-obstante clause giving it overriding effect, the High Court concluded that the Specific Relief Act does not govern proceedings under the Family Courts Act. The bench observed that where there is an inconsistency between the two statutes, the later special legislation — the Family Courts Act — must prevail on account of its overriding provision.
The Court therefore rejected the appellant’s argument that Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act should apply, holding that the objection was unsustainable in the context of Family Court proceedings governed by the Family Courts Act. The bench emphasised that the statutory scheme of the Family Courts Act is distinct and comprehensive, designed to address family law disputes with procedures and remedies tailored to matrimonial and related conflicts. By contrast, the Specific Relief Act is a general statute dealing with declaratory relief and other specific performance remedies in civil disputes. However, in matters falling within the purview of the Family Courts Act — such as petitions for nullity of marriage, divorce, restitution of conjugal rights and related reliefs — the Specific Relief Act’s provisions do not apply due to the clear legislative intent expressed in Section 20 of the Family Courts Act.
In light of these considerations, the High Court upheld the order of the Family Court and dismissed the miscellaneous appeal. The bench reaffirmed that statutory provisions with an overriding effect must be interpreted as displacing other inconsistent laws, and that the Family Courts Act, being a later and special enactment, excludes the application of general provisions of the Specific Relief Act to proceedings falling under its scope.
This ruling clarifies the interplay between the Family Courts Act and the Specific Relief Act, establishing that general principles of declaratory relief under the Specific Relief Act cannot be invoked in Family Court proceedings where the Family Courts Act itself provides the statutory framework and remedies. The High Court’s interpretation reinforces the primacy of the Family Courts Act in adjudicating matrimonial disputes and related matters brought before Family Courts under the specialised regime created by Parliament.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.