IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.279 of 2009 1. SHAMBHU KUMAR 2. SANJAY KUMAR RANJAN BOTH ARE SONS OF LATE NAND DEO PRASAD RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE GOPALPUR, P.S.- GOGARI, DISTRICT- KHAGARIA. 3. SHASHI KALA DEVI @ SUSHILA DEVI WIFE OF BRAHMDEO PRASAD CHAURASIA. 4. SUNITA DEVI @ RITIKA DEVI WIFE OF UPENDRA PRASAD CHAURASIA. 3 AND 4 ARE DAUGHTERS OF LATE NAND DEO PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HARI NAGAR @ HARANGI TOLA POLICE STATION MAHESH KHUNT, DISTRICT- KHAGARIA. 5. SAVITA DEVI WIFE OF BIMAL KISHORE PRASAD, DAUGHTER OF LATE NAND DEO PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BADI BAILIA, POLICE STATION GOGARI, DISTRICT- KHAGARIA. 6. SAPNA DEVI WIFE OF ANIL KUMAR CHAURASIA, DAUGHTER OF LATE NAND DEO PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BALIA GOSHALA ROAD, POLICE STATION BALIA TOWN, DISTRICT BALIA (UTTAR PRADESH) …. Appellants Versus 1. MUNNI DEVI DAUGHTER OF PARSURAM MANDAL, RESIDENT OF BAISA, POLICE STATION PARBATTA, DISTRICT- KHAGARIA AT PRESENT C/O- PAWAN KUMAR CHAURASIA HOUSE OF KAPILDEO MAHTO, NAGDAH BHAGWATI ASTHAN P.O.- NAGDAH, POLICE STATION- BEGUSARAI MUFFASIL (O.P. SINGHOUL), DISTRICT- BEGUSARAI 2. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION BARAUNI REFINARY THROUGH EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BARAUNI REFINARY, POST OFFICE- BARAUNI OIL REFINARY, DISTRICT- BEGUSARAI 3. ASHOK SINGH, SON OF SRI MUNNI LAL SINGH RESIDENT OF MATHURAPUR, POLICE STATION KHAGARIA DISTRICT- KHAGARIA. ……. Respondents ----------- 3 10.11.2009 Heard Mr. Shashidhar Jha for the appellant. This appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act ,1984 is directed against the order dated 11.5.2009 passed by learned Incharge Principal Judge, Family Court, Begusarai in Matrimonial Case no. 39 of 2005 (Shambhu Kumar versus Munni Devi), whereby the same has been dismissed, as not maintainable. 2 It appears that the appellant has sought a declaration that respondent no. 1 is not lawfully wedded wife of his father. Learned Trial Court has held that such an issue cannot be adjudicated by the Family Court, and a civil suit is the appropriate remedy. On perusal of the materials on record and consideration of the submissions of the parties, we entirely agree with the impugned order. Suit is the basic remedy of a citizen of this country and all issues relating to civil rights and liabilities can be adjudicated in a suit. The sweep and extent of jurisdiction of the Family Court is defined by the terms of the Family Court Act. It appears to us that an issue of the present nature cannot be adjudicated by the Family Court. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. It goes without saying that it will be open to the appellant to approach Civil Court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with law. pkj (S.K. Katriar, J.) ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )