The Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that mere existence of a marital relationship between the litigating parties howsoever tangential cannot be the basis or the foundation for the proceedings being brought before a Family Court. The Bench opined that 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. If cause of action is independent of the marital relationship, the matter would be outside the purview of the family court.
Brief Facts:
A Learned Single Judge of the Court has referred the following question for consideration:
“(a) Whether a suit for possession /injunction filed by the in-laws of the defendant or either of them, claiming themselves or either of them to be the exclusive owner of the property of which the possession is sought or with respect to which injunction is prayed for from or against the defendant/daughter-in-law, is to be tried exclusively by the Family Court established under the Family Courts Act, and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred?
(b) Whether the impleadment or non-impleadment of the husband of the defendant/son of the plaintiff has any effect on the maintainability of such a suit before a Civil Court?”
The primary question is whether the claim of a third party against or involving a party to a marriage, even if he/she is a parent of one of the spouses, should be exclusively tried before the Family Court, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of Civil Court.
The issue (a) arose because of contradicting judgments passed in the cases. On one hand is the case of Avneet Kaur v. Sadhu Singh wherein it was held that a suit seeking eviction would be maintainable before Family Courts as marriage is the foundation of this dispute and on the other are cases titled as Manita Khurana v. Indira Khurana and Meena Kapoor v. Ayushi Rawal wherein it was held that such suits would fall outside the purview of the Family Courts.
The issue (b) arose as in the case titled as Avneet Kaur, it was ruled that jurisdiction of Family Courts is not limited to litigation between husband and wife. Whereas in other cases titled as Manita Khurana and Meena Kapoor, it was held that based on a mother-in-law’s exclusive title to property, a suit seeking injunction or eviction filed by her against the daughter-in-law cannot be said to be a suit ‘in circumstances arising out of a marital relationship’, thus it could not be exclusively tried by a Family Court.
Brief Background:
The facts in the present case were similar to those in Avneet Kaur. Allegations of misbehavior and temperamental issues were levelled against the Petitioner/daughter-in-law by the Respondents/parents-in- law, who sought a decree of permanent injunction, restraining the petitioner/daughter-in-law from entering the suit property, as well as a decree of mandatory injunction, directing the petitioner/daughter-in- law to remove her belongings as well as her children from the suit property. The petitioner/daughter in law moved an application to refer the matter to the Family Court in terms of section 7 & 8 the Family Courts Act, which was dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judge.
Contentions of the Appellant:
It was argued that Section 7 of the Family Courts Act does not use the word ‘family’ and hence, every party or member cannot be brought within the ambit of the subject provision.
Contentions of the Respondent No.1:
It was contended that jurisdiction of Civil Courts is expressly ousted to entertain such suits or proceedings. Further, since there is no such explicit qualification in Explanation (d), (e), (f) and (g) to Section 7(1) of the Family Court Act, it should be interpreted liberally and widely.
Observations of the Court:
The underlying aim of the Family Courts Act was observed i.e., to promote an amicable resolution of disputes relating to marriage and family affairs and the matters connected therewith through conciliation, mediation, counselling and like measures and thus securing speedy settlement of such disputes.
The Court analyzed judicial precedents which excluded jurisdiction of family court and cases which conferred jurisdiction on family courts.
It was observed that for ousting jurisdiction of civil courts, there must be either a specific exclusion of its jurisdiction or it must be shown to be ousted by necessary implication.
The Bench ruled that term ‘marital relationship’ has to be interpreted de hors the meaning and import of the term ‘family’. The expression, ‘marital relationship’ when bifurcated brings out that the word ‘marital’ has been defined as ‘of or relating to marriage or relations between husband and wife’ while ‘marriage’ has been defined as a ‘formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognised by law, by which they become husband and wife’.
It was held:
“Mere existence of a marital relationship between the litigating parties howsoever tangential cannot be the basis or the foundation for the proceedings being brought before a Family Court. We hasten to add that if we allow the interpretation that has been placed to the subject provision in the case of Avneet Kaur, it is likely to open a pandora’s box, which would risk inclusion of all disputes as between the parents and their married children and even siblings within its ambit.”
The Bench opined that 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.
If cause of action is independent of the marital relationship, the matter would be outside the purview of the family court.
The issues were answered accordingly:
-Issue (a)
Each of the categories under Section 7(1)(a) of the Act are undoubtedly civil in nature. 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 proprietorship rights or ownership rights to immovable property are not integral to maintaining the matrimonial relationship. Such rights may be claimed as against a third person or anyone in the family or for that matter somebody connected through matrimonial relationship. Indeed, when it comes to a dispute as between mother-in-law and/or father-in-law on the one side and their estranged daughter- in-law on the other side, the claim of proprietorship or ownership of a property and thereby seeking relief in the nature of possession and/or injunction by its very nature incidentally indicates a matrimonial relationship, but such relationship is not a foundational fact so as to lay a claim. Such relationship is not at the core of the dispute but exists independently in civil law, and thus, the Family Courts do not exercise exclusive jurisdiction over such disputes and as an inevitable corollary the jurisdiction of Civil Courts is not barred.
-Issue (b)
In light of our answer to Question (a), the answer to this question would necessarily have to be in the negative. The mere impleadment or non-impleadment of the husband or the defendant/son of the plaintiff would not be determinative of the question relating to the jurisdiction of the Family Court. The joinder or non-joinder of parties would have to be considered in light of the plethora of case law which already exists on that issue. Ultimately and irrespective of whether a husband is joined or not, the jurisdiction of the Family Court would have to ascertained based on the cause of action and whether that is founded on the marital relationship or has a mere casual or incidental connection to the cause.
The judgement of Avneet Kaur was overruled.
The decision of the Court:
Accordingly, the reference was answered by the High Court.
Case Title: Geeta Anand v. Tanya Arjun & Anr.
Case No.: CS(OS) 601/2022
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Yashwant Varma, Hon’ble Justice Dharmesh Sharma
Advocates for: Advs. Mr. Rakesh Tiku, Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Mr. Tarun Pilania & Mr. Sandeep
Kumar
Advocates for: Advs. Mr. Nakul Mohta, Ms. Misha Rohatgi Mohta, Mr. Bharat Monga, Ms. Riya Dhingra, Dr. Amit George, Mr. Rishabh Dheer & Mr. Arkaneil Bhaumik
Read More @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
