Mother-in-Law’s Property Suit Against Daughter-in-Law Maintainable Before Civil Court, Not Family Court: Delhi HC [Read Judgment]

New Delhi: Justice Amit Sharma dismissed a petition filed by a daughter-in-law under Article 227 of the Constitution seeking transfer of her mother-in-law’s civil suit for mandatory and permanent injunction over a self-acquired property to the Family Court, holding, while applying the test laid down by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Geeta Anand v. Tanya Arjun & Anr., that where the foundational basis of a suit is the plaintiff’s proprietary rights over her own property, and those rights exist independent of any circumstances arising out of the marital relationship, the jurisdiction of the civil court is not barred and the matter does not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court.

The Delhi High Court on May 20, 2026, dismissed a petition filed by Anjali Jayant @ Laxmi under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging an order dated July 26, 2023, passed by the Civil Judge, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, which had dismissed her application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Order VII Rule 10 and Section 151 of the CPC. The application had sought dismissal and transfer of a civil suit, CS No. 24/2023, filed by her mother-in-law, Kusum Singh (respondent no. 1), to the Family Court on the ground that the subject matter arose out of the marital relationship between the petitioner and her husband, respondent no. 2.

The petitioner was married to respondent no. 2 (Vikas Singh, son of the plaintiff) on February 20, 2018. In December 2020, the family shifted to the property at A-12, Gali No. 4, Bihari Colony, Shahdara, Delhi, a house claimed by respondent no. 1/plaintiff as her self-acquired property, in which the petitioner and her husband resided as licensees on the second floor. On December 12, 2022, the husband filed a divorce petition before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts. The petitioner, in parallel, filed a maintenance petition under Section 125 CrPC for herself and her two minor daughters, a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, and an FIR under Sections 323/341/506 IPC against the mother-in-law at PS Farsh Bazar.

Respondent no. 1, a widow employed as an attendant at BHEL, Lodhi Road, instituted the civil suit, CS No. 24/2023, before the Civil Court seeking: (a) a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendants (the daughter-in-law and her husband) to permanently vacate the second floor and hand over vacant possession; (b) permanent injunctions restraining the petitioner, her father, brother, and relatives from entering the property or respondent no. 1’s office at BHEL’s Integrated Office Complex, Lodhi Road, or from contacting her; and (c) mesne profits of Rs. 15,000/- per month pendente lite and in future. The suit alleged a pattern of threats, pressure to transfer the property to the daughter-in-law, and a series of incidents between January 14 and 18, 2023, during which the petitioner’s family allegedly attempted to forcibly enter the premises, following which the petitioner eventually vacated the second floor under police supervision on January 18, 2023.

The petitioner’s core contention before both the Civil Court and the High Court was that the civil suit arose out of the marital relationship between herself and respondent no. 2 and therefore fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court under Sections 7(1)(d) and 8 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. She relied on the judgment in Avneet Kaur v. Sadhu Singh & Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4815, a Coordinate Bench decision of the Delhi High Court that had read the expression “circumstances arising out of marital relationship” broadly. Respondent no. 1 countered by relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja, (2021) 1 SCC 414, to contend that a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction founded on ownership rights is maintainable before a civil court.

The High Court found that the question had been authoritatively resolved by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Geeta Anand v. Tanya Arjun & Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2327, which had been decided on a reference arising from a conflict of opinion between Manita Khurana v. Indira Khurana and Meena Kapoor v. Ayushi Rawal on the one hand, and Avneet Kaur on the other. The Division Bench in Geeta Anand had expressly overruled Avneet Kaur, the very judgment on which the petitioner before Justice Sharma sought to rely.

The Division Bench in Geeta Anand held that the question of whether a proceeding falls within the expression “circumstances arising out of marital relationship” in Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act must be answered by identifying the foundation of the claim, its underlying basis, and its intrinsic connection, if any, to the marital relationship. The Bench held that there must be a direct nexus between the cause of action and the marital relationship, and that the marital relationship must constitute the point of origin of the action for it to fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court. A cause of action that exists independently of the marital relationship takes the matter outside the Family Court’s purview. Critically, the Division Bench answered the two referred questions as follows: (a) a suit for possession or injunction by in-laws claiming exclusive ownership of a property is not to be tried exclusively by the Family Court, since proprietary rights over immovable property are not integral to the matrimonial relationship and may exist as against anyone, including a daughter-in-law; and (b) the impleadment or non-impleadment of the husband is not determinative of Family Court jurisdiction, which turns solely on whether the cause of action is founded on the marital relationship.

[Read Judgment]