POCSO Act | Foundational Facts Establishing Offence Must Be Proved To Trigger Statutory Presumption Under Section 29: Calcutta High Court Expectation Of Higher Price In Future Auctions No Ground To Discard Highest Bid Above Reserve Price; Subsequent Sale Hit By Section 52 TP Act: Allahabad High Court AI May Well Serve As Training Wheels But Entrusting It With Pilot's Seat Would Be Both Imprudent And Dangerous: Bombay High Court Appeal Against Acquittal Under Section 138 NI Act Can Be Dismissed For Non-Prosecution If Complainant Fails To Serve Notice On Accused: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejection Of Section 348 BNSS Witness Recall Plea Is Interlocutory; Inherent Powers Cannot Provide Backdoor Entry Where Section 438(2) Revisional Bar Applies Absent Gross Injustice: Delhi High Court Limitation Period For Appeal Commences From Date Assessee Receives Copy Of ITAT Order, Not Date Of Pronouncement: Bombay High Court Under Section 254(3) Income Tax Act Section 82 CrPC | Failure To Attempt Service At Known Overseas Address Vitiates Proclamation; Setting Aside PO Declaration Does Not Invalidate Arrest Warrants Or Extradition: Delhi High Court Expenditure Incurred By Defaulting Party Cannot Be Equated With Benefit Received Under Section 64 Contract Act: Karnataka High Court Upholds Setting Aside Of Arbitral Award Under Section 34 A&C Act Vendor Executing Agreement To Sell Pendente Lite Precluded From Compromising Appeal Prejudicially; Intending Purchasers Entitled To Impleadment Under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC: Madhya Pradesh High Court Kerala Rent Act | Examination Of Co-Landlord Spouse Sufficient To Prove Bona Fide Need Even If Spouse Intending To Occupy Doesn't Testify: High Court Personal Accident Coverage Under Motor Insurance Policy Does Not Extend To Borrower; Exonerates Insurer From Liability: Madras High Court Limitation To Challenge Void Sale Deed Runs From Discovery Of Fraud, Unilateral Material Alteration Vitiates Title: Orissa High Court Interim Status Quo Order Automatically Lapses Upon Dismissal Of Suit, Pendency Of First Appeal Does Not Entitle Injunction Under Order 39 CPC: Punjab & Haryana High Court District Caste Verification Committee Has No Jurisdiction Under Section 4C Karnataka SC/ST Act To Cancel Caste Certificate On Private Third-Party Complaint Absent Validation Request: Karnataka High Court Joint Title Presumes Equal Share Unless Exclusive Consideration Proved By Documented Evidence: Kerala High Court POCSO Act | Delay In Cross-Examination Of Prosecution Witnesses Does Not Weaken Sterling Testimony Of Victim: Madras High Court Mandatory Affixation Of Welfare Fund Stamp On Vakalatnama Valid Under List III Entries 23 & 26, Not A Toll On Right To Practice: Telangana High Court Upholds Sections 12 & 12A Of Advocates Welfare Fund Act BSF Personnel Certified Medically Incapacitated Entitled To Disability Pension Despite 'Voluntary Retirement' Label Under Rule 48-A CCS Rules: Punjab & Haryana High Court SARFAESI Auction Purchaser Takes Title Free From Subsequent Attachments, Claim Enquiry Confined Only To Property Rights: Kerala High Court Commercial Use, Late-Night Events In Areas Adjacent To Reserved Forest Prohibited To Protect Wildlife Under Forest Conservation Norms: Rajasthan High Court In Composite Negligence, Claimants Free To Recover Entire Compensation From Any Joint Tortfeasor Without Impleading Other Vehicle: Orissa High Court Regular Magistrate Lacks Jurisdiction Under Section 190 CrPC To Take Cognizance Against Sitting Or Former Legislators; Special MP/MLA Court Alone Competent: Karnataka High Court Specific Performance Cannot Be Decreed On Fabricated Sale Agreement Bearing Sequential Stamp Papers From Decade-Old Mortgage; Section 340 CrPC Applicable: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sole Testimony Of Child Victim Stands On Same Footing As Injured Witness, Defective Investigation No Ground To Discard Credible Evidence: Delhi High Court Upholds Conviction U/S 6 POCSO Act, 376 IPC Once Trial Court Accepts Written Statement Without Objection, It Cannot Recall Order To Strike Off Defence Under Order 8 Rule 1: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Court Fee Refund Under Section 69 Or Section 69-A Of Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act If Out-Of-Court Settlement Is Reached After Trial Commences: Madras High Court

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

07 May 2024 2:49 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

Latest Legal News