Electricity Act 2003 | Section 56(2) Does Not Preclude Licensee From Raising Supplementary Demand After Two Years; Only Restricts Right To Disconnect: Supreme Court Dissolution Of Partnership At Will | Outgoing Partner Entitled To Market Value Of Assets As On Date Of Distribution, Not Date Of Dissolution: Supreme Court SEBI | Release Of Escrow Under Buyback Regulations Does Not Preclude Independent Inquiry Into Fraud Under PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Promotion Based On Merit Does Not Wipe Out Past Adverse Records But Must Be Balanced In FR 56(j) Compulsory Retirement: Supreme Court Appellate Court Can Convict For Offence Even If Charge Not Framed By Trial Court Under Section 464 CrPC: Supreme Court Extradition | Sovereign Assurance Does Not Override Judicial Sentencing; Cannot Be Used To Artificially Accelerate Sentence Completion: Supreme Court Article 21 | State Has A Positive Duty To Protect Public Health By Implementing Front-Of-Package Labelling Regulations: Supreme Court Revenue Entries Are Not Documents Of Title, Cannot Replace Substantive Evidence In Property Disputes: Supreme Court Long Possession Without Hostile Animus Does Not Amount To Adverse Possession: Supreme Court Administrative Discretion Must Comply With Article 14; Subsequent Executive Decisions Cannot Retroactively Cure Failure Of Timely Performance: Supreme Court Municipal Corporation Cannot Unilaterally Downgrade Market Value Of Land Acquired For Road Widening To Deny TDR Certificates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Execution Of Agreement To Sell Does Not Automatically Terminate Existing Tenancy: Allahabad High Court Writ Jurisdiction Not Maintainable When Title To Property Is Under A Cloud And Subject Matter Of Disputed Facts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Amendment Of Plaint Seeking Impleadment Of Third Parties And Addition Of Time-Barred Claims In A Partition Suit Cannot Be Permitted: Bombay High Court Reassessment Order Does Not Result In Merger Of Original Assessment Order If Issues Are Distinct: Andhra Pradesh High Court GST Assessment Order Uploaded Only Under 'Additional Notices' Tab Without Separate Intimation Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Calcutta High Court 'Prolonged Inaction' Cannot Be Rewarded: Delhi High Court Upholds CESTAT Refusal To Condone 968-Day Delay In Filing Customs Appeal Probate No Longer Mandatory To Establish Rights Under A Will Following 2025 Amendment To Indian Succession Act: J&K High Court Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Used To Introduce New Factual Foundations Or Reopen Concluded Arbitral Awards: Karnataka High Court High Court Cannot Invoke Article 227 To Strike Off Plaint When Statutory Remedy Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Is Available: Madras High Court Section 58 BNSS | Detention Beyond 24 Hours Without Magistrate’s Authority Vitiates Arrest And Subsequent Remand: Orissa High Court Arbitrator Is The Sole Judge Of Quality And Quantity Of Evidence, Court Cannot Act As Court Of Appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 5 Limitation Act | Court Cannot Condone Delay In A Mechanical Manner Without Ascertaining Bona Fides Of The Applicant: Calcutta High Court High Court Cannot Quash FIR Under Section 482 CrPC By Conducting Mini-Trial On Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court Taxation Law | Mere Assertion Of Natural Justice Violation On Disputed Facts Won't Bypass Statutory Appeal: Delhi High Court

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