Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

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

Latest Legal News