CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka 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