Property Disputes Between Spouses Exclusively Cognizable by Family Courts: Allahabad High Court Set Aside Civil Proceeding - 2026-02-10

Family Courts Hold Exclusive Authority Over Spousal Property Disputes: Allahabad HC

In a significant ruling clarifying the boundaries of judicial authority, the Allahabad High Court has nullified a civil court’s verdict in a property dispute between a husband and his estranged wife. The court underscored that local civil courts lack the inherent jurisdiction to decide on property disputes arising between married couples, emphasizing that such matters are the exclusive domain of the Family Court.

The Conflict: A Property Purchase Gone Sour

The case involves Sachin Kumar, who appealed against an October 2024 judgment from a Ghaziabad civil court. Kumar had purchased a flat in Ghaziabad in 2017, listing his wife, Smt. Nidhi Dohre, as a joint owner. According to Kumar, the inclusion of his wife as a "benami" joint owner was a gesture of love and affection, and he maintained that he was the sole financier of the property through his own bank accounts and loans.

As the couple’s relationship deteriorated—marked by domestic discord, desertion, and subsequent criminal litigation—Kumar sought a mandatory injunction to force the developer, Agrawal Associates, to execute the sale deed solely in his name. The trial court dismissed his suit, holding that the agreement established joint ownership and that the plaintiff had failed to prove exclusive ownership.

The Problem of Jurisdictional Competence

On appeal, Justice Sandeep Jain did not delve into the merits of the property ownership claim. Instead, the Court focused on a fundamental procedural flaw: the suit was adjudicated by an Additional Civil Judge rather than a Family Court.

Under ** Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 , the legislature explicitly mandates that any suit or proceeding between parties to a marriage regarding their property is cognizable only by a Family Court. The High Court determined that the civil court’s decision was "a nullity, in the eye of law," as it lacked the inherent power to entertain the dispute.

Key Observations

The judgment relied on settled precedents to highlight why the lower court's decision could not stand. The Court noted:

• On the Nature of Jurisdiction: "A decree passed by a court without jurisdiction over the subject matter or on other grounds which goes to the root of its exercise or jurisdiction, lacks inherent jurisdiction. It is a coram non judice ."
• On Res Judicata: "It is apparent that any finding recorded by a court lacking inherent jurisdiction, does not operate as res judicata, between the parties."
• On Statutory Mandate: "Explanation (c) of Section 7 (1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 provides that suits or proceedings between the parties to a marriage with respect to the property of the parties or of either of them, are only cognizable by the Family Court."

Impact of the Decision

The Allahabad High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the trial court’s judgment. Significantly, it ordered the restoration of the original suit and directed the Trial Court to return the plaint to the appellant, Sachin Kumar, for immediate presentation before the competent Family Court.

The Family Court has been instructed to decide the matter afresh within six months. This ruling serves as a vital reminder to legal professionals and litigants that matrimonial property disputes must be funneled through the specialized Family Court system, ensuring that such sensitive and deeply personal legal battles are heard by a forum specifically empowered to address the realities of marital status and property rights.