Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |    

Proceedings under DV Act Cannot Act as an Embargo in Civil Proceedings: Delhi High Court Upholds Trial Court’s Decision in Partition Suit

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the Trial Court’s decision in a partition suit. The High Court, led by Hon’ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, affirmed the legal principle that proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), cannot impede the progress of civil suits, reinforcing the Supreme Court’s stance in the landmark case of Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja.

The petitioner, Nidh’ Jain, had approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, contesting the Trial Court’s order which dismissed her application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The application sought the dismissal of a partition suit filed by Rani Jain, alleging concealment of facts.

Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, in her judgment, emphasized, “It is well settled law that, proceedings under DV Act and Civil Proceedings under ‘suit for partition’ are independent of each other and have to be decided as per their respective provisions of law.” This statement addresses the crux of the petitioner’s contention, which relied on various interim orders passed by the DV Court.

The petitioner argued that the plaintiff, being not in actual or constructive possession of the suit property, could not maintain the suit for partition. However, the High Court found no merit in this argument. Justice Arora noted, “The orders [under the DV Act] cannot be construed as ousting the plaintiff and defendant nos. 1 and 2 from the possession of the suit property.”

Further, the Court observed that the nature of the DV Court orders were interim protective measures and did not influence the plaintiff’s right to file a partition suit. The High Court’s decision thus upholds the separation of proceedings under the DV Act from civil proceedings, a principle crucial in the Indian judicial system.

Date of Decision: 23 November 2023

NIDHI JAIN VS RANI JAIN & ORS

Similar News