Even 1.5 Years in Jail Doesn’t Dilute Section 37 NDPS Rigour: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail in 710 Kg Poppy Husk Case Stay of Conviction Nullifies Disqualification Under Section 8(3) RP Act: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Quo Warranto Against Rahul Gandhi Custodial Interrogation Necessary to Uncover ₹2 Crore MGNREGA Scam: Kerala High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail for Vendors in Corruption Case Order 41 Rule 23 CPC | Trial Court Cannot Decide Title Solely on a Vacated Judgment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Strikes By Bar Associations Cannot Stall Justice: Allahabad High Court Holds Office Bearers Liable for Contempt if Revenue Suits Are Delayed Due to Boycotts To Constitute a Service PE, Services Must Be Furnished Within India Through Employees Present in India: Delhi High Court Medical Negligence | State Liable for Loss of Vision in Botched Cataract Surgeries: Gauhati High Court Awards Compensation Waiver of Right Under Section 50 NDPS is Valid Even Without Panch Signatures: Bombay High Court Agricultural Land Is 'Property' Under Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937: A.P. High Court Tenant Who Pays Rent After Verifying Landlord’s Will Cannot Dispute His Title Under Section 116 Evidence Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Eviction Challenge by HP State Cooperative Bank Clever Drafting Cannot Override Limitation Bar: Gujarat High Court Rejects Suit for Specific Performance Once Divorce by Mutual Consent Is Final, Wife Cannot Pursue Criminal Case for Stridhan Without Reserving Right to Do So: Himachal Pradesh High Court Caste-Based Insults Must Show Intent – Mere Abuse Not Enough for Atrocities Act: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Failure to Inform Detenu of Right to Represent to Detaining Authority Vitiates NSA Detention: Gauhati High Court Awarding Further Interest On Penal Charges Is Contrary To Fundamental Policy Of Indian Arbitration Law: Bombay High Court

Family Courts Cannot Be Exclusive Arbiters in Property Disputes Merely Indicating Matrimonial Links: Delhi High Court Clarifies Jurisdiction

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment addressing the scope of the Family Courts’ jurisdiction, the Delhi High Court clarified that property disputes involving in-laws and daughters-in-law, where the cause of action is independent of the marital relationship, do not exclusively fall under the Family Court’s purview.

 

The bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Yashwant Varma and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dharmesh Sharma delivered the judgment in the case of ABC vs XYZ, which centered on whether Family Courts have jurisdiction over suits for possession or injunction filed by in-laws claiming exclusive ownership of property involving daughters-in-law.

 

The matter arose from a dispute between a mother-in-law (plaintiff) and her daughter-in-law (defendant) concerning the right to stay in a property exclusively owned by the plaintiff. The central legal question was whether such suits should be tried exclusively by Family Courts, thus barring Civil Court’s jurisdiction.

The Court held that disputes merely indicating matrimonial relationships, such as the one in question, do not fall exclusively under Family Court jurisdiction. The rights to property are independent of matrimonial relationships, thereby allowing Civil Courts to retain jurisdiction.

 

Justice Sharma, writing for the bench, emphasized that mere existence of a matrimonial relationship between parties is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon Family Courts. The cause of action must have a direct and intrinsic connection with the marital relationship. Furthermore, the impleadment or non-impleadment of the husband in such cases does not influence the jurisdiction determination.

The Court overruled the judgment in Avneet Kaur, which held that jurisdiction of Family Courts is not limited to disputes between husband and wife and encompassed broader circumstances arising out of marital relationships. Instead, the Court aligned with the views in Manita Khurana and Meena Kapoor, focusing on the intrinsic link of the dispute with the marital relationship.

 

This landmark judgment clarifies the jurisdictional boundaries between Family and Civil Courts, ensuring that property disputes, unless inherently connected to matrimonial issues, are adjudicated in the appropriate forum. It establishes a clear criterion for jurisdiction based on the cause of action’s foundation in the marital relationship.

 Date of Decision: April 1, 2024

ABC vs XYZ

 

Latest Legal News