Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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