Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Gift Deed Voided as Son Fails to Care for Elderly Mother, Karnataka High Court Asserts ‘Implied Duty’ in Property Transfers    |     Denial of a legible 164 statement is a denial of a fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution of India: Kerala High Court    |     Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Fraud on the Courts Cannot Be Tolerated: Supreme Court Ordered CBI Investigation Against Advocate    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |     Prima Facie Proof of Valid Marriage Required Before Awarding Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Interim Maintenance Order    |    

Family Court Entertains Suit for Injunction Against Husband and Daughter from First Marriage – Himachal HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, a Family Court upheld its jurisdiction to entertain a suit seeking an injunction against a husband and his daughter from his first marriage. The judgment, delivered by Justice Sandeep Sharma, sets a precedent for similar cases involving third-party rights arising from prior settlement deeds within a marital relationship.

The case revolved around a dispute between a wife (the plaintiff) and her husband (defendant No.1), who executed a settlement/gift deed in favor of his daughter (defendant No.2) from his first marriage. The deed was executed out of love and affection to secure the future of his daughter, rather than any marital obligation.

In the judgment, Justice Sandeep Sharma noted, “Today, parties to the lis made claim that defendant No.2 has not become an absolute owner, but definitely, on account of the Rapat entered in the Rapat Rojnamcha and attestation of mutation, she can claim to have right in the property as detailed in the plaint.”

The court found that defendant No.2 already had an independent interest in the suit property before the settlement with the plaintiff. The settlement/gift deed executed by defendant No.1 was recorded in the revenue record and was not the sole basis of defendant No.2’s interest in the property.

The court further observed, “Leaving everything aside, this court finds that as per the averments contained in the plaint, defendant No.1 vide settlement/gift deed, settled part of land at Mohal Shilla in Khasra Nos. 474, 498, and 499 (kita-3) in favor of his daughter, meaning thereby interest of defendant No.2 has been created much prior to the settlement deed dated 31.8.2021.”

Addressing the issue of jurisdiction, the court ruled that the suit was not barred under Explanation (c) or (d) of Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act, as the circumstances leading to the injunction did not arise exclusively from the marital relationship.

The court relied on previous precedents and held, “It is quite apparent from the aforesaid law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court that the exclusion of the jurisdiction of a civil court is not readily to be inferred unless the conditions above set down apply.”

The court dismissed arguments attempting to transfer the suit to a family court, stating that the suit property was not exclusively owned by one of the parties to the marriage due to defendant No.2’s independent interest created earlier.

This landmark judgment clarifies the jurisdiction of family courts in cases where third-party rights are involved due to prior settlement deeds within a marital relationship. It serves as a precedent for future cases dealing with similar issues.

Date of Decision: July 21, 2023

Beverley Singh  vs Tejinder Singh And Another

Similar News