Family Courts can Decide Property Disputes between Husband and Wife, Rules HC

Recently, the Allahabad High Court stepped in to address a recurring jurisdictional lapse, civil courts entertaining disputes that are statutorily reserved for Family Courts. The case, stemming from a husband’s claim of exclusive ownership over a jointly held flat, brought into focus the scope of Section 7 of the Family Courts Act and the consequences of courts proceeding without jurisdiction, setting the stage for a decisive pronouncement on the proper forum for such disputes.

The controversy began when the husband, claiming to be the sole contributor towards the purchase of a jointly registered flat booked in 2017, approached the civil court seeking a mandatory injunction to have the sale deed executed solely in his name. He argued that his wife was included as a co-owner only out of “love and affection” and had not contributed financially. The relationship, however, had deteriorated, with multiple matrimonial disputes pending between the parties. While the wife did not contest the proceedings and the suit proceeded ex parte, the Trial Court dismissed the claim, holding that the property was jointly owned and no direction could be issued to exclude the wife. Aggrieved, the husband carried the matter in appeal, contending that the findings would prejudice his rights if allowed to stand.

The High Court reframed the issue at a more fundamental level. It held that the civil court lacked the authority to entertain the dispute altogether, as such matters fall squarely within the domain of Family Courts. Relying on the statutory mandate, the Court observed that “suits or proceedings between the parties to a marriage with respect to the property of the parties… are only cognizable by the Family Court.”

The Bench emphasised that jurisdictional defects strike at the very root of judicial authority, rendering any decree passed without jurisdiction a nullity. It further clarified that such findings cannot operate as res judicata, reinforcing that errors on jurisdiction cannot be cured by consent or procedural lapse.

Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgment and directed that the plaint be returned for presentation before the competent Family Court, which was tasked to decide the matter afresh within a stipulated timeline.

Case Title: Sachin Kumar Vs. Smt Nidhi Dohre and Anr

Case No.: First Appeal No. - 95 of 2026

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Jain,

Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Naveen Kumar, Adv. Raj Kumar Gupta, Adv. Satish, Adv. Shanu Bhatt

Advocate for the Respondent: Adv. Gulab Chand Bharati, Adv. Ishwar Chandra Srivastava, Adv. Kaushlendra

Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com