Sonali Rai vs Ganga Ram Rai and Ano.
- Court
- High Court of Sikkim
CNR No. SKHC01-00080-2025
THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK
(Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SINGLE BENCH : THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN, JUDGE
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RSA No.01 of 2025
1. Miss Sonali Rai,
D/o of Late Shri Ajai Rai alias Ajay Rai,
Aged about 6 years,
R/o Balutar,
P.O. and P.S. Singtam,
Sikkim. ... Appellant
versus
1. Shri Ganga Ram Rai,
S/o of Late Shri Rudramani Rai,
R/o Riwa,
P.O. and P.S. Singtam,
Sikkim.
2. The Municipal Commissioner,
Gangtok Municipal Corporation,
P.O. Deorali, P.S. Gangtok,
Sikkim ... Respondents
Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
{An Appeal against the impugned Judgment dated 12.03.2025 passed by Learned Principal District
Judge, Gangtok, in Title Appeal No.04 of 2024 (Shri Ganga Ram Rai vs. Ms. Sonali Rai and Other}.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Mr. N. Rai, Senior Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel) and Mr. Rajendra
Upreti, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel) for the Appellant.
Ms. Zola Megi, Advocate and Ms. Rewarshi Rai, Ms. Grace Chettri and
Ms. Justina Gurung, Advocates for the Respondent No.1.
Mr. Lahang Limboo, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing : 05-11-2026
Date of Judgment : 05-11-2026
Date of uploading : 06-11-2026
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J.
This is a Regular Second Appeal. The solitary question framed
by this Court is;
“Whether the suit filed by the appellant falls under
Section 7(1)(e) of the Family Courts Act, 1984?
Page 1 of 6
RSA No.01 of 2025
Sonali Rai vs. Ganga Ram Rai and Another
2. Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, deals with the
jurisdiction of the Family Courts. Sub-section (1)(e) states that a suit
or proceeding for a declaration as to legitimacy of any person shall be
decided by the Family Courts.
3. Section 8 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, deals with the
exclusion of jurisdiction and pending proceedings. It provides:─
“ where a Family Court has been established for any area,─ (a) no
District Court or any subordinate Civil Court referred to in sub-section
(1) of Section 7 shall, in relation to such area, have or exercised any
jurisdiction in respect of any suit or proceeding of the nature referred
in the Explanation to that sub-section . ”
4. The Regular Second Appeal has travelled to this Court in
this manner. The appellant before this Court, a minor, then four
months, through her mother and natural guardian filed a plaint against
the respondent no.1 whom she claimed to be the grandfather and
respondent no.2─the Municipal Commissioner, Gangtok Municipal
Corporation, seeking the following reliefs;
“ ......................................................................
a. A decree declaring that the Plaintiff is the legal
and natural daughter of late Ajai Rai and
granddaughter of defendant no.1.
b. A decree directing the defendant no.2 for
issuance of Plaintiff’s birth certificate;
c. Cost of the suit;
d. Any other relief or reliefs as the Plaintiff may be
entitled to, under the law.
...................................................................... ”
5. The averments in the plaint summarised is that late Ajai
Rai and the appellant’s mother Son Maya Chettri had married and
solemnized their marriage, on 27-12-2015, at Legship Mandir
(Shivalaya Mandir) according to customary rites and ceremonies in
presence of relatives and well-wishers. According to the appellant,
Page 2 of 6
RSA No.01 of 2025
Sonali Rai vs. Ganga Ram Rai and Another
late Ajai Rai died on 10-04-2019 due to ailments when her mother was
seven months pregnant with appellant who was born on 01-06-2019.
According to the plaint, after her birth the hospital submitted the birth
report and legal information to the office of the Municipal
Commissioner for registration of her birth and issuance of birth
certificate which was registered vide entry no.962, dated 13-06-2019.
However, during the process of issuance of her birth certificate the
family members of the respondent no.1 filed their objection with the
office of the Municipal Commissioner and her birth certificate was
withheld. It was the appellant’s grievance that since the death of her
father due to the facts mentioned in the plaint the appellant is facing
serious identity and paternity crisis regarding her father and her
paternal family. Further, she has also been deprived of her legal
document i.e., the birth certificate etc. It is in these circumstances,
according to the appellant, that it had become necessary to confirm
that the appellant is the daughter of late Ajai Rai and accordingly her
birth certificate be issued as it is a right to know the truth of her origin
and her biological roots.
6. The learned first Court vide its Judgment, dated 22-04-
2024, in Title Suit No.20 of 2019 ( Sonali Rai vs. Ganga Ram Rai and
Another ), decreed the suit in favour of the appellant and gave a
declaration that she is the biological daughter of late Ajai Rai and also
the granddaughter of the respondent no.1. Accordingly, the
respondent no.2 was directed to issue the appellant’s birth certificate.
7. Dissatisfied, the respondent no.1 preferred Title Appeal
No.04 of 2024 ( Ganga Ram Rai vs. Sonali Rai and Another ), before the
learned Principal District Judge, Gangtok, who vide Judgment dated
12-03-2025, set aside the learned first Court’s Judgment holding that
Page 3 of 6
RSA No.01 of 2025
Sonali Rai vs. Ganga Ram Rai and Another
the learned first Court did not have jurisdiction to decide whether the
appellant was the child of late Ajai Rai and ought to have returned the
plaint to be presented to the Family Court, in which the case was to be
instituted.
8. Heard learned senior Counsel for the appellant, learned
counsel for the respondent no.1 and respondent no.2. Learned
counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that the birth certificate has
been issued in favour of the appellant which is confirmed by learned
senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant.
9. Learned senior counsel placed reliance upon the Judgment of the
1
Bharat Kumar vs. Selma Mini and Another
Kerala High Court in . The
Judgment of Division Bench of the Kerala High Court relates to an
issue which would have direct bearing in the present case. The
question which was examined by the Division Bench was: “ Whether
paternity of a child is an issue to be considered by the Family Court
under Section 7(1)(e) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, without a
matrimonial cause, is the question to be considered in this case ? ” The
question was answered in this manner;
“ 4. The jurisdiction conferred on the Family Court
is settlement of issues arising out of matrimonial causes.
Matrimonial cause is a cause relating to rights of marriage
between husband and wife. Paternity and legitimacy are
two different concepts. Paternity by itself may not, in all
circumstances, be a matrimonial cause, as in the instant
case. Paternity is the state or fact of being the father of a
particular child. Legitimacy of a child is its right to be
officially accepted as such. Admittedly the petitioner is
not the husband of the first respondent. According to the
1st respondent, she had only extra marital relationship
with the petitioner. The second respondent herein is the
husband. He did not have a case regarding legitimacy of
the child. The Family Court gets jurisdiction to go into the
question of legitimacy of any person only if such a
question arises in a matrimonial cause. An investigation
on the paternity of a person is required only when the
question of legitimacy of the person is to be decided by
the Family Court. That question arises only out of a
matrimonial cause where there is a claim on matrimonial
1
2007 SCC OnLine Ker 10
Page 4 of 6
RSA No.01 of 2025
Sonali Rai vs. Ganga Ram Rai and Another
relationship out of which the said person is born. It may
also arise in situations covered by explanation (g) to
Section 7(1), in the case of guardianship, as held by the
Supreme Court in Renubala Moharana v. Mina Mohanty,
(2004) 4 SCC 215: (2004 (2) KLT SN 38 (SC): (AIR 2004
SC 3500). It was also held by the Supreme Court in the
said decision that the Family Court cannot entertain any
proceedings for declaration as to the legitimacy of any
person without any claim on marital relationship. In the
case before us the petitioner before the Family Court, the
first respondent herein, does not have a case of marital
relationship with the petitioner herein. The case
admittedly is of extra marital relationship. The dispute is
with regard to the paternity of a child born in the said
extra marital relationship. That is not a matter falling
within the jurisdiction of the Family Court. Paternity of a
child can be gone into as incidental to a dispute on the
legitimacy arising only out of a claim on marital
relationship between the parties. Such a question also
may incidentally arise in deciding a guardianship petition.
No such situation arises in this case. ”
10. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 relied upon the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Renubala Moharana and Another vs.
2
Mina Mohanty and Others . The relevant paragraph is reproduced
verbatim;
“6. The view taken by the High Court as regards
the first prayer has been assailed before us. Under
Section 7(1) read with Clause (e) of the Explanation, a
suit or proceeding for a declaration "as to the legitimacy
of any person" is within the jurisdiction of the Family
Court. According to the appellants, the child was born on
account of extra-marital relationship of Respondent No.1
with their son the late Samuel Maharana. Accepting the
case of the appellants, the child cannot obviously be
treated as a legitimate child of Samuel and Mina Mohanty
(R1). The question of status of the child in relation to the
parties to the petition can be incidentally gone into by the
Family Court if necessary while deciding the guardianship
petition. That liberty has been granted to the Family
Court. However, as rightly held by the Family Court and
the High Court, the declaratory relief as regards the
illegitimacy of the child cannot be granted. In effect, that
is what the appellants want under prayer No.1. ”
11. A perusal of the aforesaid two judgments of the Supreme
Court and the Kerala High Court leaves no room to doubt that the case
of the appellant before the learned first Court squarely fell within the
parameters of Section 7(1)(e) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, as the
claim for a decree declaring that the appellant is the legal and natural
2
AIR 2004 SC 3500
Page 5 of 6
RSA No.01 of 2025
Sonali Rai vs. Ganga Ram Rai and Another
daughter of late Ajai Rai and granddaughter of respondent no.1 was
based on the matrimonial relation between late Ajai Rai and her
mother. Thus, it would squarely fall under Section 7(1)(e) of the
Family Courts Act, 1984, to the exclusion of the Civil Court as
expressly provided in Section 8 thereof.
12. I have therefore no hesitance in upholding the Judgment of
the learned Appellate Court. The Appeal is therefore rejected.
13. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
14. Copy of this Judgment be transmitted to the Learned
Courts below forthwith along with all records.
(Bhaskar Raj Pradhan)
Judge
Approved for Reporting : Yes
sdl
Page 6 of 6