Property Disputes Between In-Laws & Daughter-In-Law Not Within Exclusive Jurisdiction Of Family Court: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that ownership disputes between in-laws and a daughter-in-law over a self-acquired property do not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of Family Courts merely because the parties are related through marriage. Upholding dismissal of a plea seeking transfer of a mother-in-law's injunction suit to the Family Court, Justice Amit Sharma observed that proprietary...
The Delhi High Court has held that ownership disputes between in-laws and a daughter-in-law over a self-acquired property do not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of Family Courts merely because the parties are related through marriage.
Upholding dismissal of a plea seeking transfer of a mother-in-law's injunction suit to the Family Court, Justice Amit Sharma observed that proprietary rights over immovable property exist independent of the marital relationship and are triable by ordinary civil courts.
The case arose from a suit filed by a woman seeking mandatory and permanent injunction against her son and daughter-in-law in relation to a property, which she claimed was her self-acquired property.
She alleged that the couple were merely licensees residing on the second floor of the property and sought directions for them to vacate the premises.
The daughter-in-law challenged maintainability of the suit before the civil court, contending that the dispute arose out of a matrimonial relationship and therefore fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court under Sections 7 and 8 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
She also claimed the property constituted her “shared household” under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
Rejecting the contention, the High Court relied on the Division Bench judgment in Geeta Anand v. Tanya Arjun, which clarified that the determinative test is whether the cause of action directly arises from the marital relationship.
“The right of respondent No.1 (mother-in-law) to seek mandatory and permanent injunction cannot be stated to be 'circumstances arising out of a marital relationship'… It is, in fact, her proprietary rights over the subject property,” the Court observed.
The Court further noted that the mother-in-law's claim was founded on her ownership rights over the property and not on matrimonial discord between the parties.
“Her right to seek such reliefs, as noted hereinbefore, arises out of her claim of ownership over the subject property, and exists independent of 'circumstances arising out of a marital relationship',” it observed.
As sich, the High Court upheld the trial court's order dismissing the daughter-in-law's application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and refused to transfer the suit to the Family Court.
Appearance: Mr. Bhuvan Jayant, Ms. Maitri Goel, Ms. Prachi Goel, Mr. Varun Ranjan and Mr. Rittik Pandey, Advocates for Petitioner; Mr. Gaurav Dubey, Advocate for R-1.
Case title: AJ v. KS
Case no.: CM(M) 1776/2023