Whether Suit For Possession Filed By In-Laws Against Daughter-In-Law Will Be Exclusively Tried By Family Court? Delhi HC's Larger Bench To Decide

The Delhi High Court has referred the issue of whether a suit for possession or injunction filed by the in-laws against the daughter-in-law concerning the suit property of which they are the exclusive owners, is required to be exclusively tried by the Family Court established under the Family Courts Act, 1984, to a larger bench.

The single bench of Justice Navin Chawla made the larger bench reference while hearing a suit for Permanent Injunction filed by the plaintiff against her daughter-in-law, seeking to restrain the later from visiting or entering the suit property.

The court observed that Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act, which deals with the jurisdiction of the Family Court, provides in Explanation (d) that “a suit or proceeding for an order or injunction in circumstance arising out of a marital relationship” would fall under the jurisdiction of the Family Court.

It noted that there is an apparent conflict between the interpretation of the Explanation (d) to Section 7(1) of the Act in Avneet Kaur vs Sadhu Singh & Anr, 2022/DHC/2453, on one hand, and in Manita Khurana vs Indra Khurana, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 225, and Meena Kapoor vs Ayushi Rawal & Anr, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 2481, on the other.

The bench said that there are many suits pending before the high court and the District Courts which would involve similar question of jurisdiction and, therefore, it would be in the interest of justice that this issue is authoritatively decided by a Larger Bench.

It was the case of the plaintiff that she is the owner of the suit property and that her son, defendant no.2, was residing with her in the property. She said that her daughter-in-law had failed to comply with the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) under which the latter had agreed to vacate the suit property and shift to another property owned by the plaintiff.

The plaint said that the daughter-in-law had been visiting the suit property against her wishes and threatening to squat there until her "illegal demands" are met.

The maintainability of the suit before the High Court was disputed by the defendant- daughter-in-law, who moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking rejection of the plaint. She said the suit sought an injunction ‘in circumstances arising out of matrimonial relationship’, the exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim lied with a Family Court in terms of Explanation (d) to Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act.

Per contra, the plaintiff argued that where the claim is based on the exclusive ownership of the suit property, merely because certain facts leading to the cause of action refer to the marital relationship of the defendants, that would not make the suit filed by the mother-in-law as one seeking injunction ‘in circumstances arising out of a matrimonial relationship’ to be adjudicated only by a Family Court.

She further submitted that in the present case, the cause of action was based on the MoU, under which the daughter-in-law had agreed to vacate the suit property. Thus, she argued that the cause of action had no concern with the matrimonial relationship between the defendants.

Referring to the decisions in Avneet Kaur (2022), Manita Khurana (2010), and Meena Kapoor (2020), the court said,

“A reading of the above judgments would show that there is an apparent conflict of opinion between Manita Khurana (supra) and Meena Kapoor (supra) on one hand and Avneet Kaur (supra) on the other, on the interpretation, ambit and the scope of Explanation (d) of Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act. While in Manita Khurana (supra) and Meena Kapoor (supra), the learned Single Judge(s) of this Court have held that the claim of a third party to a marriage, even if she be the mother of one of the spouses, cannot be adjudicated before the Family Court, and that the Suit seeking eviction based on title to the Suit property would be maintainable, in Avneet Kaur (supra), the learned Single Judge has held that such a Suit would not be maintainable as the foundation of the dispute is the marriage.”

The court thus framed the following issue for determination by a larger bench:

• “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.”

The court has further framed the issue of 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, for consideration of the larger bench.

Case Title: GA vs TA & Anr

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 498

Counsel for the Plaintiff: Ms. Malavika Rajkotia & Ms. Akriti Tyagi, Advs.

Counsel for the Defendants: Mr. Prosenjit Banerjee, Mr. Aaditya Vijay Kumar, Ms. Liza M. Baruah & Mr. Akshit Mohan, Advs.