Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Ss. 5(1), 11 – Second Marriage During Subistence of First Marriage – Declaration of Marriage as Null and Void – Appreciation of Evidence – Preponderance of Probability – Standard of Proof. Family Court declared the marriage between Opposite Party No.1/appellant and Opposite Party No.2/respondent (second set) as null and void under S.11 on the ground that the appellant had a subsisting marriage with respondent No.1. On appeal, held, matrimonial proceedings being civil in nature, the standard of proof is preponderance of probability. Evidence of PW-1, PW-3, 15 photographs (Exts.6–6N), Ext-7, Ext-9, Ext-10A, Ext-11, and mediation document Ext-12 provided sufficient basis for the Family Court to conclude that the marriage of 29.06.2001 with respondent No.1 was duly proved and that the appellant subsequently entered into another marriage in violation of S.5(1). Minor contradictions in oral evidence do not detract from the overall evidentiary weight. Findings of the Family Court upheld.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Ss. 5(1), 11 – Second Marriage During Subistence of First Marriage – Declaration of Marriage as Null and Void – Appreciation of Evidence – Preponderance of Probability – Standard of Proof.
Family Court declared the marriage between Opposite Party No.1/appellant and Opposite Party No.2/respondent (second set) as null and void under S.11 on the ground that the appellant had a subsisting marriage with respondent No.1. On appeal, held, matrimonial proceedings being civil in nature, the standard of proof is preponderance of probability. Evidence of PW-1, PW-3, 15 photographs (Exts.6–6N), Ext-7, Ext-9, Ext-10A, Ext-11, and mediation document Ext-12 provided sufficient basis for the Family Court to conclude that the marriage of 29.06.2001 with respondent No.1 was duly proved and that the appellant subsequently entered into another marriage in violation of S.5(1). Minor contradictions in oral evidence do not detract from the overall evidentiary weight. Findings of the Family Court upheld.

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – S.34 – Applicability to Matrimonial Proceedings – Declaratory Relief – Bar, If Any.
Held, S.34 of the Specific Relief Act has no application to proceedings under the Family Courts Act, 1984. By virtue of S.20 of the Family Courts Act, its provisions have overriding effect over any inconsistent law. Matrimonial proceedings seeking declaration regarding validity of marriage or matrimonial status fall squarely within S.7(1)(Explanation)(b) of the Family Courts Act. Hence, non-claim of further relief such as restitution of conjugal rights does not bar a suit for declaration of nullity of marriage filed under S.11 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Contention of bar under S.34 rejected.

Family Courts Act, 1984 – Ss. 7, 10, 20 – Jurisdiction – Overriding Effect – Maintainability of Matrimonial Proceedings for Declaration of Marital Status.
Held, Family Court is deemed a civil court with full jurisdiction to decide questions relating to validity of marriage or matrimonial status. S.20 gives overriding effect to the Act, thereby excluding the application of S.34 of the Specific Relief Act to such proceedings. Matrimonial Case No.176 of 2010 was rightly held maintainable.

Appeal Under S.19(1), Family Courts Act – Scope of Appellate Interference.
Where the Family Court has considered oral and documentary evidence comprehensively and reached findings consistent with preponderance of probability, the appellate court will not interfere unless findings are perverse. No such illegality or perversity shown in the present case.

Result: Appeal dismissed. Judgment and decree dated 29.09.2022 and 14.10.2022 affirmed.

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT

Patna High Court – M.A. No.587 of 2022
Decision dated 05-12-2025

I. Nature of the Appeal

The appellant challenged the decree of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Begusarai, which had:

1. Declared the marriage between the appellant (Opposite Party No.1) and respondent No.1 (Mamta Bharti) as valid; and

2. Declared the subsequent marriage between the appellant and respondent No.2 as null and void under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The appeal was filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

II. Grounds of Appeal Raised

The appellant raised two principal objections:

1. Non-consideration of the testimony of PW-3

PW-3 (father of respondent No.1) allegedly deposed in favour of the appellant.
The appellant argued that the Family Court failed to properly evaluate this testimony, leading to an erroneous finding.

2. Bar under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963

It was contended that the matrimonial case was in the nature of a declaratory suit, and because the applicant/respondent No.1 did not claim further relief (such as restitution of conjugal rights), the suit was barred.

III. Issues (Points of Determination) Before the High Court

The High Court framed two determinative points:

1. Whether non-consideration of PW-3’s oral evidence vitiates the judgment.

2. Whether Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act bars such matrimonial proceedings.

IV. Analysis on the First Point – Evidence and Standard of Proof

A. Scope of evidence considered

The High Court observed that the Family Court did not rely solely on PW-3’s testimony. Instead, it comprehensively evaluated:

• PW-1’s testimony.

• 15 photographs (Exts.6 to 6N) supporting the marriage of 29.06.2001.

• Ext-12 (mediation document, 21.04.2014).

• Ext-7 and Ext-10A (undertakings and affidavit statements of the appellant).

• Exts-9 and 11 (other relevant documents).

B. Burden of proof

The principle reiterated:

• The appellant must stand on his own documentary evidence.

• The Family Court appropriately considered the appellant’s own affidavits and undertakings.

C. Standard of proof in matrimonial proceedings

The Court reaffirmed:

• Matrimonial disputes are civil proceedings.

• Therefore, the applicable standard is preponderance of probability, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.

• Minor contradictions in oral testimony do not affect findings where documentary and oral evidence cumulatively favour one side.

D. Finding

The High Court held that the Family Court reached a sound conclusion based on the totality of evidence, and the appellant's challenge to PW-3’s evaluation was insufficient to disturb the decree.

First Point was answered against the appellant.

V. Analysis on the Second Point – Applicability of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act

A. Section 34 – Nature and Context

Section 34 restricts declaratory suits where the plaintiff omits to seek consequential relief.

The appellant argued that since respondent No.1 did not seek restitution or other relief, her suit for declaration of marriage status was barred.

B. The High Court’s approach

The Court examined provisions of the Family Courts Act, 1984:

• Section 7(1)(Explanation)(b) expressly empowers Family Courts to decide suits for declaration regarding validity of marriage or matrimonial status.

• Section 10(1) makes CPC applicable subject to the provisions of the Act.

• Section 20 states that the Family Courts Act has overriding effect over all other laws.

C. Effect of Section 20

The overriding effect clause means:

• Any inconsistency between the Family Courts Act and the Specific Relief Act must be resolved in favour of the Family Courts Act.

• Consequently, Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act does not govern matrimonial proceedings before the Family Court.

D. Application to this case

Even if the applicant did not seek further relief such as restitution:

• The suit for declaration of nullity under Section 11 HMA remains maintainable.

• The Principal Judge was correct in granting the declaration based on evidence.

• No illegality is created by omission of ancillary reliefs.

Second Point was also answered against the appellant.

VI. Final Conclusion of the High Court

The High Court held:

1. The Family Court correctly appreciated evidence and applied the standard of preponderance of probability.

2. The bar under Section 34 Specific Relief Act does not apply to matrimonial matters governed by the Family Courts Act.

3. No illegality or perversity exists in the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2022 and 14.10.2022.

4. The appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.