In a significant procedural intervention concerning matrimonial property rights, the Allahabad High Court stepped in to examine a serious jurisdictional lapse after a husband challenged the dismissal of his suit seeking exclusive ownership of a jointly allotted flat in Ghaziabad. The case raised a crucial legal question: whether a civil court could adjudicate a property dispute arising directly out of a marital relationship, an issue the Court scrutinised closely, hinting at a fundamental defect in the trial proceedings.
The controversy began when the husband claimed that he had purchased the disputed flat entirely from his own funds, including loan repayments, and had merely included his wife as a co-owner out of “love and affection.” Following marital discord, separation, and multiple litigations including criminal and matrimonial proceedings, the husband sought to have the sale deed executed solely in his favour.
However, the builder refused, citing joint allotment. Counsel for the appellant argued that despite his financial contribution, the trial court dismissed his suit without appreciating the true nature of ownership, while the builder maintained that it was bound to execute the sale deed in favour of both allottees. Notably, the wife did not contest the proceedings and was proceeded ex parte.
The High Court, however, shifted focus from ownership claims to a more fundamental flaw, jurisdiction. It underscored that disputes “between the parties to a marriage with respect to the property” fall squarely within the domain of Family Courts under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act. Delivering a sharp observation, the Court held that “the Court of the Additional Civil Judge… lacked inherent jurisdiction to entertain and decide the matter,” rendering the entire decree legally unsustainable. Emphasising settled law, it reiterated that a decree passed without jurisdiction is a “nullity” and “its invalidity can be set up whenever it is sought to be enforced.”
Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, and directed that the plaint be returned for presentation before the competent Family Court for fresh adjudication within six months.
Case Title: Sachin Kumar Vs. Smt Nidhi Dohre And Another
Case No.: First Appeal No. - 95 of 2026
Coram: Justice Sandeep Jain
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Naveen Kumar, Raj Kumar Gupta, Satish, Shanu Bhatt
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Gulab Chand Bharati, Ishwar Chandra Srivastava, Kaushlendra
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
