Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

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

Latest Legal News