Recently, the Delhi High Court held that ownership disputes between in-laws and a daughter-in-law over self-acquired property cannot automatically be transferred to the Family Court merely because the parties are connected through marriage. The Court upheld the maintainability of a civil suit filed by a mother-in-law seeking injunction and possession-related reliefs against her son and daughter-in-law. While dismissing the petition, Justice Amit Sharma emphasised that proprietary rights over immovable property exist independently of matrimonial disputes and that “the marital relationship is not the foundational fact” of such claims.
Brief facts:
The case arose from a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the dismissal of an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC seeking rejection of a civil suit filed by a mother-in-law against her son and daughter-in-law in relation to a self-acquired property. The suit sought mandatory and permanent injunction, mesne profits and possession-related reliefs on the allegation that the couple were merely licensees occupying a portion of the property and had refused to vacate the premises.
The dispute reached the High Court after the daughter-in-law contended that the property constituted her “shared household” under Section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and argued that the matter fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court under Sections 7 and 8 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. Matrimonial proceedings, including proceedings under Section 125 of the CrPC and the Domestic Violence Act, were already pending between the parties. The trial court rejected the plea seeking rejection of the suit, leading to the present proceedings before the High Court.
The core issue before the Court was whether ownership and possession disputes between in-laws and a daughter-in-law over self-acquired property could be treated as disputes arising out of a marital relationship so as to fall exclusively within Family Court jurisdiction.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Petitioner argued that the civil suit instituted by the mother-in-law was fundamentally rooted in matrimonial discord between the Petitioner and her husband and therefore could only be adjudicated by the Family Court under Sections 7(1)(d) and 8 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. The Counsel contended that the disputed premises constituted the petitioner’s “shared household” under Section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and that the cause of action arose directly from the marital relationship between the parties. The Petitioner argued, while referring to the Delhi High Court’s earlier decision in Avneet Kaur v. Sadhu Singh & Anr., that disputes involving possession and injunction between in-laws and a daughter-in-law are intrinsically connected with matrimonial circumstances and therefore fall within the exclusive domain of Family Courts. The Counsel further submitted that the civil court lacked territorial jurisdiction and that the suit was also defective for non-joinder of necessary parties.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Respondent, however, argued that the suit was based purely on her proprietary and ownership rights over the self-acquired property and had no foundational connection with the marital relationship between the parties. The Counsel submitted that the daughter-in-law and her husband were merely licensees occupying the premises and that reliefs for mandatory injunction, permanent injunction and mesne profits were maintainable before an ordinary civil court. Reliance was placed upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja as well as the Division Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court in Geeta Anand v. Tanya Arjun & Anr., which clarified that the determinative test is whether the cause of action directly emanates from the marital relationship. The Respondents contended that proprietary rights over immovable property exist independently of matrimonial disputes and therefore civil court jurisdiction remained unaffected.
Observation of the Court:
The Court observed that the central issue while determining jurisdiction under the Family Courts Act is not merely the existence of a matrimonial relationship between the parties, but whether the cause of action itself directly emanates from such a relationship. The Bench clarified, while referring to the Division Bench ruling in Geeta Anand v. Tanya Arjun & Anr., that proprietary disputes over immovable property cannot automatically be treated as matrimonial disputes merely because the contesting parties are related through marriage. The Court observed, “An assertion of a particular suit or proceeding being liable to be tried exclusively by the Family Court would succeed only if it is established that there is a direct nexus between the ‘cause of action’ and the ‘marital relationship’. A cause of action which is shown to exist independent of the marital relationship would clearly take the matter outside the purview of the Family Court.”
The Bench further held that claims involving ownership, possession and injunction over immovable property are fundamentally civil rights capable of existing independently of matrimonial discord. The Court clarified that proprietary rights are not integral to the continuation or existence of a marital relationship and therefore disputes concerning such rights remain triable before ordinary civil courts. The Court held, “Since the principal question therein relates to a civil right, there is no gainsaying that when claim is made about ownership rights and relief is sought in the nature of possession or injunction and/or damages, such legal rights are to be considered de hors the matrimonial relationship.”
The Court noted that the mother-in-law had instituted the suit in her capacity as owner in possession of the property and not on the basis of any matrimonial grievance against the daughter-in-law. The Bench observed that the reliefs sought in the plaint arose from alleged interference with ownership and possession rights over a self-acquired property. The Court therefore held, “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’. Thus, marital relationship, as held in Geeta Anand (supra) is not the foundational fact of her claim in the suit. It is, in fact, her proprietary rights over the subject property.”
The Bench further observed that the mere existence of a matrimonial relationship between the parties cannot become the sole determining factor for deciding Family Court jurisdiction. The Court emphasised that what is required is an “intrinsic and unwavering connection” between the cause of action and the marital relationship itself. The Bench observed, “What needs to be emphasised is that a matter would fall under the purview of Family Court only where the circumstances have a direct bearing on the marriage. It is not the relationship of the various parties which could be said to be conclusive.”
The decision of the Court:
The Court dismissed the petition and upheld the trial court’s refusal to transfer the suit to the Family Court, holding that disputes concerning ownership, possession and injunction relating to self-acquired property do not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of Family Courts merely because the parties are related through marriage. The Court reiterated that the determinative test under Sections 7 and 8 of the Family Courts Act is whether the cause of action directly arises out of the marital relationship. Since the mother-in-law’s claim was founded upon proprietary rights over the property and existed independently of matrimonial discord, the ordinary civil court retained jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute.
Case Title: Anjali Jayant@ Laxmi Vs. Kusum Singh & Anr.
Case No.: CM(M) 1776/2023 & CM APPL. 56421/2023
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amit Sharma
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Bhuvan Jayant, Adv. Maitri Goel, Adv. Prachi Goel, Adv. Varun Ranjan, Adv. Rittik Pandey
Advocate for the Respondent: Adv. Gaurav Dubey
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
