Nanda Josh v Union of India and others

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI** **TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2013/18TH ASHADHA, 1935** **OP(AFT).No. 2003 of 2012 (Z)** **----------------------------TA. NO.138/2010 of ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, KOCHI.** **...............** ## **PETITIONER(S):** **--------------------------** **SMT. NANDA JOSH, WIFE OF LATE HAVILDAR WILFRED JOSH (NO.1451197), RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO.26, MILAP NAGAR, POST OFFICE: MILAP NAGAR, DHANDHERA PHATAK, TEHSIL: ROORKEE, DISTRCT: HARIDWAR (UTTARAKHAND).** ## **BY ADV. SRI.LALIT KUMAR.** **RESPONDENT(S):** ## **---------------------------** ## **1. UNION OF INDIA,** **THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 011.** ## **2. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR,** - **ARMY GROUP INSURANCE FUND, ADJUTANT GENERAL'S BRANCH, INTEGRATED HQ OF MOD (ARMY), RAO TULA RAM MARG, POST BAG NO.14 PO, VASANT VIHAR, NEW DELHI-110 011.** **3. PRINCIPAL CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS (PENSIONS), DRAUPADI GHAT, ALLAHABAD (UTTAR PRADESH-282 0201).** ## **4. OFFICER IN CHARGE,** - **RECORDS THE BENGAL ENGINEER GROUP, ROORKEE, HARIDWAR (UTTARAKHAND-380 001).** ## **5. THE COMMANDANT,** **THE BENGAL ENGINEER GROUP AND CENTRE, ROORKEE, HARIDWAR (UTTARAKHAND-380 001).** ## **6. SHRI EDWARD. N.,** **PARANKIMANVILA VADAKKATHIL, KOTTAPURAM, P.O: MULAVANA, DISTRICT: KOLLAM, KERALA, PIN-691 503.** **R1, R3 TO R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASG. OF INDIA. R2 BY ADVS. SRI.MOHAN IDICULLA ABRAHAM SRI.MARTIN D.ALUMKARA SMT.R.RAJASREE (CHUTTIMATTATHIL) R6 BY SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE. ADV. SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ.** **THIS OP (ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL - ART.227) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-06-2013, THE COURT ON 09-07-2013 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **rs.** **OP(AFT).No. 2003 of 2012 (Z)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-** - **P1TRUE COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DT. 26.11.2010 PASSED BY THE KOCHI BENCH OF THE AFT.** - **P2TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 20.05.97 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE SENIOR DIVISION ROORKEE IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.15/95, WHICH IS IN HINDI LANGUAGE, ALONG WITH ITS TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION.** - **P3TRUE COPY OF GOVT. NOTIFICATION NO.321/JUSTICE DEPARTMENT/2001 DATED 24.12.2001 WHICH IS IN HINDI LANGUAGE, ALONG WITH ITS TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION, NOTIFYING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF FAMILY COURT AT HARIDWAR.** - **P4TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 15.03.2007 PASSED THE FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM IN O.S.NO.545/2004, AND TYPED COPY OF THE SAME.** - **P5COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE DATED 01/11/1984, ISSUED BY THE MILITARY HOSPITAL, ROORKEE.** - **P6COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE DATED 09/03/2011, ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR CANTONMENT BOARD, ROORKEE CANTT.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-** - **EXT.R1A COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD IN SECOND APPEAL NO.222 OF 1997 DATED 13/04/2000.** **EXT.R1B COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN S.L.P.(C) NO.7314/2000 DATED 20/11/2000. EXT.R1C COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO. 32992/2004 DATED 12/11/2004. EXT.R1D COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM IN I.A. NO.2573/2004 IN O.S. NO.545/2004 DATED 30/11/2004. EXT.R1E COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12/04/2005. EXT.R1F COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21/07/2005. EXT.R1G COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 06/12/2005. EXT.R1H COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21/12/2005. EXT.R1I COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23/08/2006. EXT.R1J COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO. 36863/2008 DATED 15/12/2008.** **2/-........** **OP(AFT).No. 2003 of 2012 (Z)** **EXT.R2A COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15/12/1975 TO THE CHIEF OF THE ARMY STAFF FROM THE MINISTRY OF DEFENCE. EXT.R2B COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE WITH BYE-LAWS OF THE ARMY GROUP INSURANCE FUND. EXT.R2C COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF A.O.23/2002/AGI-ARMY GROUP INSURANCE FUND. EXT.R2D COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18/04/2006 IN C.W.P. NO.18374/2005 OF THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA. EXT.R2E COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10/12/2010 IN C.W.P. NO.6815/2006 OF HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. EXT.R2F COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21/10/2009 IN C.W.P. NO.53196/2009 OF THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD. EXT.R2G COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17/11/2009 IN W.P.(C) NO. 9189/2009 OF THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI. EXT.R2H COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18/05/2012 IN C.W.P. NO.17977/2010 OF THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA. EXT.R6A COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO.545/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM DATED NIL. EXT.R6B COPY OF THE W.P.(C) NO.36863/2008 BEFORE THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 11/12/2008. EXT.R6C COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT IN W.P.(C) NO. 36863/2008 DATED 12/08/2009. EXT.R6D COPY OF THE REPLY AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN W.P.(C) NO. 36863/2008 DATED 19/08/2009.** **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.S. TO JUDGE.** **rs.** ## **T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ.** **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -** ## **O.P.(AFT) No. 2003 of 2012** **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -** **DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF JULY, 2013** ## **JUDGMENT** ## Ramachandran Nair, J. This original petition is one filed by the petitioner challenging Ext.P1 order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Cochin (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal), in T.A.No.138/2010. 2. The core dispute is between the petitioner and the sixth respondent. The petitioner is aggrieved by the stoppage of family pension which she was receiving as the widow of an army personnel, viz. late Havildar Shri Wilfred Josh. By the impugned order the Tribunal directed to grant the same to the sixth respondent who is the father of the said army personnel. The sixth respondent was the petitioner in T.A.No.138/2010. The same arose from Writ Petition (C) No.36863/2008 filed before this Court. 3. We heard learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Lalith Kumar, Shri P.B. Suresh Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for the sixth respondent and Shri P. Parameswaran Nair, learned Asst. Solicitor General. O.P.(AFT)No.2003/2012 -2- 4. The narration of the facts in the original petition herein shows that the petitioner is a resident of Roorkee which is in Haridwar District in the State of Uttarakhand. According to her, during the year 1981-1982 she came into close contact with the deceased Wilfred Josh who was at that time, posted at Bengal Engineer Group and Centre at Roorkee. He used to visit the house of the petitioner's sister and her husband and they developed a personal relationship. Later, they entered into a marriage which was performed as per the Hindu rites as he had already renounced his Christian religion even before entering into Army service and had adopted Hindu religion. The marriage was conducted on 30.5.1982 at Siva Nand Temple, Dhandhera Phatak, Roorkee. They were living as husband and wife in Milap Nagar, Roorkee, thereafter. In the wedlock two children were born, one daughter on 18.12.1982 and one son on 1.11.1984 and the son was born in the Military hospital, Roorkee. According to her, during 1982-1983, the mother of Wilfred Josh, Smt. Mary Edward came to Roorkee with her younger son Roosevelt for undergoing an operation and was admitted in the Military hospital, Roorkee. They had stayed at Roorkee for about six months and the petitioner was looking after her as the daughter in law. The O.P.(AFT)No.2003/2012 -3- husband of the petitioner died while participating in a military exercise at Suratgarh in Rajasthan, on 13.4.1988. 5. As none of the benefits were released to the petitioner in the light of an application filed by the mother of the deceased, the petitioner filed a suit as O.S.No.253/1988 in the Court of Munsiff, Roorkee for a declaration of her legal character as wife of deceased Wilfred Josh. The mother of the deceased, Smt. Mary Edward was the defendant in the said suit which was dismissed on 28.2.1995 against which the petitioner filed an appeal before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Roorkee as Civil Appeal No.15/1995. The said appeal was allowed as per Ext.P2 judgment. 6. The appellate judgment Ext.P2 was challenged by Smt. Mary Edward in the High Court of Allahabad which was dismissed and later she filed a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court which was also dismissed. 7. Thereafter the petitioner was being granted family pension by the third respondent herein with effect from the date of death of her late husband. The sixth respondent, the father of late Wilfred Josh approached the Family Court, Kollam as O.S.No.545/2004 for a declaration that the O.P.(AFT)No.2003/2012 -4- petitioner is not the legally wedded wife of his son. The Family Court decreed the suit ex-parte. A copy of the judgment has been produced as Ext.P4. Even though the judgment was forwarded to the Military authorities by the sixth respondent, they did not obviously accept the said judgment so as to deny family pension to the petitioner. It is thereafter, W.P.(C) No.36863/2008 was filed by the sixth respondent before this Court, which was transferred to the Tribunal. 8. While attacking the order of the Armed Forces Tribunal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Armed Forces Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction in declaring that the petitioner is not the legally wedded wife of Wilfred Josh; in finding that Wilfred Josh was remaining as a Christian even at the time of his death, and that the children of the petitioner are not born out of the wedlock with Wilfred Josh and in ignoring the decree of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Roorkee, which has attained finality. It is also submitted that the suit filed by the fifth respondent before the Family Court, Kollam as O.S.No.545/2004 was not at all maintainable, as a suit filed with respect to the marital status of the petitioner with the deceased, will not come within the scope of Section 7 and Explanation (b) O.P.(AFT)No.2003/2012 -5- of the Family Courts Act. It is further submitted that one of the main reasons for the Armed Forces Tribunal for accepting the validity of the decree passed by the Family Court, Kollam in favour of the sixth respondent, is on a finding that the suit filed by the petitioner before the Court of Munsiff, Roorkee lacked inherent jurisdiction, as already a Family Court was established in Haridwar long prior to the filing of the suit. Reliance is placed on Ext.P3 notification issued by the Government of Uttaranchal, which according to the petitioner, will show that the family court was established only in 2002, whereas the judgment Ext.P2 is dated 20.5.1997. It is further submitted that the Armed Forces Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction in directing registration of a Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioner for allegedly filing a false affidavit and producing false documents. It is submitted that the Tribunal ignored the finality attached to Ext.P2 judgment. It is further submitted that Ext.P4 judgment rendered in favour of the sixth respondent, is without jurisdiction. 9. Another contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that none of the above aspects were within the scope of T.A.No.138/2010 O.P.(AFT)No.2003/2012 -6- which arose from W.P.(C) No.36863/2008. The said writ petition was filed only for seeking a relief by way of executing the judgment and decree obtained as per Ext.P4 from the Family Court, Kollam and the main prayer was only for issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding respondents 1 to 3 therein to sanction and disburse terminal benefits due to the petitioner's deceased son Wilfred Josh, to the petitioner in the light of Ext.P4 judgment of the Family Court, Kollam. The second prayer is for a direction to the first respondent to consider Ext.P8 representation produced therein. It is submitted that such being the prayers made by the sixth respondent, the Tribunal could not have gone into a detailed enquiry with regard to the validity of the marriage and other like factors. 10. It is further pointed out that the sixth respondent is guilty of suppression of a judgment of this Court which is produced as Ext.R1(c) along with the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 to 5 herein. The said judgment was rendered in W.P.(C) No.32992/2004 filed by the sixth respondent seeking for identical reliefs and this Court upheld the right of the petitioner in the light of Ext.P2 judgment which has become final after O.P.(AFT)No.2003/2012 -7- the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition. It is submitted that the said judgment which is dated 12.11.2004 was suppressed before the Family Court, Kollam and it appears that the suit itself was properly re-filed immediately after the judgment was rendered. It was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal also. Since the sixth respondent has failed to get any direction in the said writ petition recognising his right to get family pension, the non disclosure of the same before the Family Court and before the Tribunal, amounts to grave suppression of an important fact which had a bearing on the issue and therefore the entire case of the sixth respondent will have to be rejected. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that the sixth respondent being the father of the deceased, cannot maintain a suit before the Family Court. The word 'family' is not defined under the Family Courts Act. Under Order XXXII A Rule 6 of the C.P.C., the word 'family' is defined. The said definition, even if includes a father, he should be a person permanently living with his own son. Herein, the sixth respondent was actually residing permanently in Kerala and never with his son during his Army service. O.P.(AFT)No.2003/2012 -8- 12. Learned Senior Counsel for the sixth respondent, Shri P.B. Sureshkumar submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal is perfectly justified on the facts of this case. It is submitted that the deceased Wilfred Josh died as a Christian and he was cremated with Christian rites. There was never an entry about the change of his religious status in any of the Army records. It is submitted that the petitioner's alleged marriage is not a legal and valid one and it has come out in evidence before the Tribunal that she has married two other persons also and had children in those wedlocks. Therefore, the finding by the Tribunal on this score is really justified and the direction to register a criminal miscellaneous case under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. for producing false documents cannot be said to be improper. It is submitted that a marriage between a Hindu and Christian cannot be recognised in law and reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex Court in **Gullipilli Sowria Raj v. Bandaru Pavani alias Gullipili Pavani** {(2009) 1 SCC 714} in that context. 13. Learned Senior Counsel for the sixth respondent further submitted that the suit filed by the petitioner which culminated in the appellate judgment Ext.P2 lacks inherent jurisdiction as the Family Court O.P.(AFT)No.2003/2012 -9- was established in the district of Haridwar before that. It is also submitted that Ext.P3 notification is not for constituting a Family Court, but only for deployment of staff, etc. Therefore, the finding rendered by the Tribunal on that score cannot be assailed. It is also submitted that in the light of the provisions of the Armed Forces Tribunals Act, 2007, the Tribunal is having ample power to go into the respective rights of the family members of Army personnel. Reliance is placed on the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in **Akhil G. v. Union of India and others** (2012 (1) KHC 528). Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that Ext.R1(c) judgment will not affect the claim of the sixth respondent as therein the main prayer was only to direct an enquiry into the manipulations of service documents of the sixth respondent's son. It is therefore submitted that the Family Court, Kollam had jurisdiction to consider the various aspects. It is submitted that clause (b) of Explanation to Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act will take in a suit of the nature filed by the sixth respondent and the said suit can only be filed before the Family Court, being one relating to the marital status of his son and there is no lack of inherent jurisdiction in entertaining the suit. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that Ext.P4 O.P.(AFT)No.2003/2012 -10- judgment is an ex-parte judgment and the petitioner had not challenged the same before any forum and it has become final. Therefore, the petitioner's contentions are barred by the principles of res-judicata. It is further submitted that the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon Order XXXII A Rule 6 of the C.P.C. cannot be accepted. Herein, the Family Court has got all the powers to entertain such a suit. In that context learned Senior Counsel relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in **Abdul Jaleel v. Shahida** (2003 (2) KLT 403 - SC). 14. Shri P. Parameswaran Nair, learned Asst. Solicitor General submitted that in the light of the direction issued by the Tribunal, now the benefits are being granted to the sixth respondent. 15. A reading of the order Ext.P1 shows that the Tribunal formulated the following points for consideration, in para 7: “(1) Whether the petitioner is entitled to rely on Ext.P4 judgment rendered by Family Court, Kollam in O.S.No.545 of 2004, in view of the decree and judgment passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Roorkee? (2) Whether the contention of the petitioner is barred by res judicata? O.P.(AFT)No.2003/2012 -11- - (3) Whether the contention of the 4[th] respondent is barred by res judicata? (4) Whether the contention of the 4[th] respondent that deceased Wilfred converted into Hinduism is true? (5) Whether the case of the 4[th] respondent that deceased Wilfred married her on 30.5.1982 and respondents 5 and 6 are the children born to them in that wedlock is true? (6) Who is entitled to family pension and other terminal benefits available to the legal heirs or NOK on account of the death of Havildar Wilfred? 16. First we will consider the arguments relating to the alleged lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division in granting a decree in favour of the petitioner as per Ext.P2. The discussion with regard to the above aspect is clear from paragraphs 9 and 10 of the order passed by the Tribunal. The above contention was accepted on the following findings: “..........In the plaint filed before the Family Court, Kollam, the petitioner has specifically averred that judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Roorkee in A.S.No.15 of 1995 is without jurisdiction because on that day a Family Court was constituted in that area (Haridwar) and the Second Additional Munsiff Court, Roorkee lacked jurisdiction O.P.(AFT)No.2003/2012 -12- to deal with the suit. In the rejoinder filed in this proceedings also, it is categorically averred that Family Court was established in that area from 2.10.1986 and hence Munsiff Court, Roorkee has inherent lack of jurisdiction to entertain the suit. This averment of the petitioner that Family Court was established at Haridwar in Roorkee remain unchallenged. So, we accept the case of the petitioner that a Family Court was established having jurisdiction over the area which was within the jurisdiction of 2[nd] Additional Munsiff Court, Roorkee.” In para 10, after referring to the scheme under Sections 7 and 8 of the Family Courts Act, the following observation has been made: “..............So, even accepting the contention of the counsel for the 4[th] respondent that there was no Family Court in existence when the suit was filed, since a Family Court was established Civil Suit No.253 of 1988 ought to have been transferred to the Family Court, as the civil court lacks inherent jurisdiction after the formation of the Family Court.” In para 11, it was held that “the materials on record shows that there was inherent lack of jurisdiction for the2nd Additional Munsiff Court, Roorkee and Civil Judge, Senior Division, Roorkee to declare the matrimonial status of 4[th] respondent in the year 1995 or 1997.” The question therefore will be O.P.(AFT)No.2003/2012 -13- whether a Family Court was established in the District of Haridwar at the time of filing of the suit, viz. O.S. No.253/1988 by the petitioner. 17. Ext.P3 is a communication issued by the Secretary, Law and Justice Consultant, Uttaranchal Government. It is dated 24.12.2001. The subject shown therein is the following: “Family Courts Act, 1984. Notification No.66/1984 which is applicable to the whole state of Uttaranchal, establishment of Family Courts in the District of Dehradun, Haridwar and Udham Singh Nagar/creation of posts.” In the opening paragraph, it is stated that the “Honourable Governor of the State has been pleased to grant sanction for establishment of Family Courts in the District of Dehradun, Haridwar and Udham Singh Nagar also, in order to promote speedy settlement of family disputes, especially marriage related disputes through mutual conciliation.” Para 2 relates to sanction for creation of gazetted and non-gazetted posts with effect from the date of issue of the government order or from the date of appointment whichever is later, till 28.2.2002 and other allied matters. As per para 3, it is informed “the Hon'ble Governor is also pleased to sanction an amount of Rs.9,97,000/- for meeting the recurring and non recurring expenditures in O.P.(AFT)No.2003/2012 -14- connection with creation of posts for the courts for the period of three months in the current financial year 2001-2002. Para 6 shows that concurrence of the finance department was received vide their non official No.577 dated 22.12.2001. 18. The Family Courts Act, 1984 was published in Gazette of India Extraordinary No.83 dated 14.9.1984. Going by sub-section (3) of Section 1, it shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint, and different dates may be appointed for different States. Therefore, there should be a notification for bringing into force the said Act in a particular State as well as another notification for establishing the Family Courts. Shri P.B. Sureshkumar, learned Senior Counsel for the sixth respondent submitted that in Ext.P3 there is a difference since the same is issued for creation of posts and other allied matters and not the one for establishing family courts. No further materials are available with regard to the same. 19. We have considered the rival submissions. The opening paragraph of Ext.P3 will indicate that sanction has been accorded by the Governor for establishment of Family Courts in various districts, viz. O.P.(AFT)No.2003/2012 -15- Dehradun, Haridwar and Udham Singh Nagar. Ext.P3 is dated 24.12.2001. Even if the Act is notified, unless the establishment of the courts is announced by a separate notification, the parties will not be able to approach the said court. The date of the notification published in the Gazette constituting the family court and naming the first presiding officer, will be the relevant one. This Court in **Ali Haji v. Alima** (1996 (2) KLT 997) had occasion to consider a similar issue. It was held as follows in para 3: “Here it is a case of initial constitution and the Family Court became established not when a Notification constituting the Family Court at Ernakulam on 6.6.1992 was published but only when a Notification was published on 7.7.1992 naming the Judge as the first Presiding Officer of that court. In this case, the suit was decreed by the Civil Court on 3.7.1992 before the Notification appointing the Judge was published in the Kerala Gazette No.27 dt.7.7.1992. In my view, therefore, even assuming that the Act has application to the case on hand, the decree passed on 3.7.1992 by the civil court cannot be considered to be one without jurisdiction.” The issue therefore will have to be considered with respect to the relevant O.P.(AFT)No.2003/2012 -16- notification. A decision either way can be taken only on the basis of the contents of the notification. It cannot be speculated also. We find that the learned Tribunal herein had not the advantage of perusing any of the notifications. It concluded the issue by stating that the averment of the sixth respondent had not been denied by the petitioner. Since it is a matter of grant of family pension, it was incumbent on the 6[th] respondent to produce necessary materials to show the establishment of Family Court in Haridwar District, especially since his wife was fighting out as a defendant in the suit, before all the forums including the Apex Court and such a contention was never seen raised before any forum also, by her. The finding on the said point cannot therefore be supported. 20. Another finding rendered by the learned Tribunal in para 12 of the order Ext.P1 is that claim of the sixth respondent is one coming under clause (b) of Explanation to Section 7 (1) of the Family Courts Act. Clause (b) of Explanation to Section 7(1) of the Act reads as follows: “7(1)........ Explanation:- The suits and proceedings referred to in this subsection are suits and proceedings of the following nature, namely,-- O.P.(AFT)No.2003/2012 -17- ## (a) omitted (b) a suit or proceeding for a declaration as to the validity of a marriage or as to the marital status of any person.” Shri P.B. Sureshkumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the sixth respondent submitted that since a Family Court was created for deciding various disputes in connection with the marital status and other related family disputes, a suit will lie only before the Family Court. The answer given by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a negative declaration cannot be sought for before the Family Court. Shri P.B. Sureshkumar, learned Senior Counsel relied upon the following judgment in this context: **Syamaladevi v. Sraladevi** (2009 (1) KLT 892) (by Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.R. Raman and Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.T. Ravikumar) and **Abdul Jaleel v. Shahida** (2003 (2) KLT 403 - SC). In fact, we have noticed that in **Ali Haji's case** (1996 (2) KLT 997) a learned Single Judge of this Court (Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.K. Balasubramanian as He then was) in para 6 observed that “on the scheme of Section 7(1), it appears to me that clauses (a) to (d) of the Explanation to Section 7(1) of the Act relate to disputes between the spouses in a subsisting marriage.” There is no elaborate O.P.(AFT)No.2003/2012 -18- discussion on the said issue. We are not going into the resolution of the said dispute at this stage since we are of the view that the entire matter may have to go back to the Tribunal in the light of certain other aspects arising in this case, so that the Tribunal itself will be able to render a decision on the said point. Parties will be free to address arguments on these before the Tribunal. 21. One of the findings rendered by the Tribunal relate to the applicability of the principles of res judicata. It was held in para 18 that the decision rendered by the Family Court, Kollam in O.S.No.545/2004 operates as res judicata. 22. The important argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner being about the suppression of Ext.R1(c) judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court, before all the forums by the sixth respondent, we proceed to consider the said contention since a finding on either way will have its own impact in the whole matter. The said judgment is dated 12.11.2004. It is submitted that the petitioner had no occasion to raise the said contention at any time before, since the existence of the said judgment was not within the knowledge of the petitioner and it was only filed now O.P.(AFT)No.2003/2012 -19- along with the counter affidavit of respondents 1 to 5. It was not available before the Tribunal also, as the sixth respondent never produced it before the Tribunal. 23. The writ petition leading to Ext.R1(c) judgment was filed by the sixth respondent as W.P.(C) No.32992/2004 which was dismissed. In the opening paragraph of the judgment after referring to the suit filed by the petitioner herein, as O.S.No. 253/1988 which was challenged by the wife of the sixth respondent before the High Court of Allahabad, this Court examined the contention of the sixth respondent that he was not a party to the same and has held as follows: “............However, it is clear from the pleadings in this writ petition that he was fully aware of the civil case which ultimately reached the High Court of Allahabad. During those days, petitioner had not made any complaint before any authority regarding anything done in respect of the service records of the petitioner's son. Instead he approached the Family Court, Kollam making the third respondent and the children born to his son as respondents.” Para 2 of the judgment will show that the suit filed before the Family Court was returned on 28.10.2004 and with regard to the contention of the sixth O.P.(AFT)No.2003/2012 -20- respondent about the alleged manipulation of the records of his son, this Court has held as follows: “...............Now after the lapse of 16 years from the date of death of his son, petitioner claims that he has come to know that somebody in the office had meddled with the service records of the petitioner's son and those records were tampered, with ulterior motives.” After referring to the representation filed by the petitioner therein (6[th] respondent herein) dated 11.10.2004 requesting an enquiry by a specialised agency like Central Bureau of Investigation, this Court has held as follows: “Though there is a delay of 16 years in filing the above representation and an equal length of delay in filing this writ petition, there is no explanation from the petitioner as to why it did not occur to him for such a length of time that the service records of his son were tampered and why he did not care to make any enquiry regarding the alleged tampering of the records. The bonafides behind the petitioner's present attempt to rake up old issues after a long period of time is difficult to appreciate. From the sequence of events narrated in the writ petition, it is clear as day light that a long battle has been fought before the Civil Courts and the High Court of Allahabad. Now the petitioner wants to shift the venue of the legal battle and to O.P.(AFT)No.2003/2012 -21- drag the third respondent and the children to the southernmost part of this country. When the Family Court at Kollam, refused to exercise jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner, another attempt is made to make use of the High Court a forum for a continued fight against the widow of his deceased son.” Finally the writ petition was dismissed in para 4 as hereunder: “4. It is clear from the averments made in this writ petition that the petitioner is under a serious misconception about the jurisdiction of this Court as also the liberty of a citizen to cause unnecessary problems for others. It is unfortunate that the petitioner feels aggrieved despite the lapse of 16 years from the death of his son who, as found by the competent civil courts and as affirmed by the High Court of Allahabad, had married the 3[rd] respondent who gave birth to the respondent children in that wedlock. Petitioner has misled himself in thinking that the jurisdiction of this Court can be made use of two harass the respondents. This writ petition is clearly an abuse of the process of this Court and, therefore, it deserves to be dismissed in limine. It appears from the affidavit that the petitioner is an old man. Otherwise, this is a fit case where the petitioner shall be ordered to pay exemplary costs which could be utilised by the Legal Services Authority for its activities including legal aid to the poor. I refrain from awarding costs for yet another reason O.P.(AFT)No.2003/2012 -22- also, namely, that I have dismissed this writ petition, in limine.” It is clear that at the time of filing of the writ petition the sixth respondent had approached the Family Court but the petition filed was returned. Finally this Court observed that the writ petition filed is an abuse of the process of the court. 24. It is evident, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, that it is thereafter that the plaint was re-presented before the Family court and the sixth respondent proceeded to obtain a decree. Learned counsel submitted that the judgment in the above writ petition was not produced before the Family Court. If produced, the suit would have been dismissed. It has great impact on the bonafides of the sixth respondent, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner. The judgment was never produced before the Tribunal also which deprived an opportunity to consider its effect, as the same is binding on the parties including the sixth respondent. 25. Since it is a plea of gross suppression of the judgment, it is only proper that both parties should get an opportunity to address the matter before the Tribunal itself. Neither sixth respondent nor other official respondents had made it part of their respective pleadings before the O.P.(AFT)No.2003/2012 -23- Tribunal. The petitioner came to know about it on receipt of the counter affidavit, here. This Court, therefore, will not be justified in entering any finding at this stage. We are of the view that the entire matter will have to be considered by the Tribunal itself. 26. There are certain other findings rendered by the learned Tribunal which are coming under points 4 and 5, i.e. whether the contention of the 4[th] respondent (petitioner herein) that deceased Wilfred Josh had converted into Hinduism is true and whether the children who have been arrayed as respondents 5 and 6 before the Tribunal are born to the petitioner after her alleged marriage with Wilfred Josh. We find from the detailed order passed by the Tribunal that the Tribunal has entered certain findings including that the deceased Wilfred never converted as a Hindu and the petitioner's marriage is void. There is also a finding that the petitioner was married to one PNR Matbar Singh and four children were born to them. In para 23, detailed discussion has been made about the school records of the children and it was found that Exts.R4(c) and R4(d) showing the date of birth of the children are forged by the fourth respondent (petitioner herein). It is on this finding that the Tribunal directed registration of a criminal case against the O.P.(AFT)No.2003/2012 -24- petitioner under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. 27. We find great force in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal is mainly concerned with disputes relating to service matters and it cannot act as a Family Court to decide about the matrimonial status of the parties, validity of marriage, etc.. Those aspects will have to be decided by competent civil/family courts as the case may be, which are conferred with jurisdiction to decide such family disputes. The Tribunal is established as a forum for deciding disputes and complaints with respect to commission, appointments, enrolment and conditions of service in respect of persons subject to the Army Act, 1950, the Navy Act, 1957 and the Air Fore Act, 1950. Sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act specifies that “the Act shall also apply to retired personnel subject to the Army act, 1950 or the Navy Act, 1957 or the Air Force Act, 1950 including their dependants, heirs and successors, in so far as it relates to their service matters.” The definition of “service matters” is given under Section 3(o) of the Act. Section 14 of the Act conferring jurisdiction, power and authority is in respect of all service matters. This Court in **Soudamini v. Kunhathi** (2012 (3) KLT 96) has held O.P.(AFT)No.2003/2012 -25- that “any one claiming right under the military personnel pertaining to any service matter can have recourse only before the Armed Forces Tribunal and not before the Civil Court and that rival claims of family pension between persons claiming under military personnel can be decided only by the Tribunal.” But we are of the view that with regard to any disputed questions of marital status, the matter will have to depend upon the decision of the competent civil courts/family courts. In fact, going by the prayers made in W.P.(C) No.36863/2008, such disputes were not raised before the competent forum by the sixth respondent, as what he had sought was a direction to implement the decree of the family court by the issuance of a writ of mandamus. At any rate, in the said writ petition he could not have sought for a relief with regard to the Religion of his deceased son as well as the question whether the petitioner herein was really married to him. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that the findings rendered by the Tribunal on points 4 and 5 could not be sustained and we hold so. The direction to register a Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and the further direction to Army Headquarters to investigate certain matters contained in paragraphs 31 and 32 of the order, are also O.P.(AFT)No.2003/2012 -26- vacated. All the other relevant issues will have to be considered by the learned Tribunal itself as indicated already. We therefore quash Ext.P1 and remand back T.A.No.138/2010 to the Armed Forces Tribunal for a fresh decision. The Tribunal will dispose of the matter after giving all opportunities to both sides. The original petition is allowed to the above extent. No costs. **(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)** **(A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE)** **kav/**