The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the scope of matrimonial disputes under the Family Courts Act 1984, particularly in relation to the transfer of civil suits to the Family Court. The court's decision clarified the narrower construction of 'matrimonial relationship' and its applicability to the case at hand.

Rule. Rule returnable forthwith and is heard by consent.

2. Petitioner is daughter in law of the respondent.

3. She claims that the Special Civil Suit No.273 of 2007 filed by respondent her father-in-law, which is pending in the Court of Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division. Amravati be transferred to the Family Court at Nagpur.

4. According to the petitioner:

(a) She was married to Santosh S/o. respondent original plaintiff on 30-61998. and the matrimonial status subsists. She was required to file a proceeding No.A-415-03 in the Family Court at Nagpur.

(b) In the conciliation before the Conciliator, a Compromise was arrived at and she was taken back by her husband to matrimonial home.

(c) The matrimonial home is the same which is the suit house subject matter of special Civil Suit No.273 of 2007 pending before the Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati. (d) The consent terms, which were filed in the Family Court. para 1 read as follows:-

"1) Petitioner and respondent have forgotten their dispute. Both decided amicably that both along with son and daughter will reside together since 8-1-2004 on trial basis. Husband Santosh will come before counselor on 8-1-04 and thereafter from her parent's house Santosh will take her wife at Budhwara Amravati.[quoted from page 10 of the Misc. Civil Application Paper-book].

(e) The consent terms are dated 31-12-2003 and from that date till the petitioner was reached at her parents' place at Nagpur for Diwali of 2007. she was staying at her husband's house, where they were staying with his father in Budhwara Amravati.

8. The petitioner's emphasis is on the averment that place of residence of the husband of the petitioner to be Budhwara Amravati i.e. suit house in relation to which present respondent plaintiff is seeking relief of perpetual injunction.

6. The respondent/plaintiff's averments and claim in suit can be better read by quoting para No.3 of the plaint, which reads as follows:-

"3. It is submitted that in the oral partition effected on 21-9-1969 between the plaintiff. his wife Sau. Usha, mother of the plamtlff late Smt. Rukhmabai and his son Santosh alias Ambadas, one-half portion of the suit house was put to the share of the plaintIff and remaining one-half portion of the suit house was put to the share of mother of the plaintiff late Smt. Rukhmabai. That as the plaintiff's mother expired on 3-2-1987, her one-half share in the suit house devolved upon the plaintiff he being her legal hell'. Thus, the plaintiff is the sole and absolute owner and in exclusive possession of the suit house. That the defendant has no right, title and interest of any nature whatsoever, in any manner whatsoever in and over the suit house, It will not be out of place to mention here that in the said partition effected in the year 1969 various properties including the plots at Badnera Road. Arnravati were put to the share of plaintiff's son Santosh".

(quoted from page 18 of the Misc. Civil Application Paper-book).

On these averments, the plaintiff claims to be the absolute owner of the suit house.

7. The plaintiff has then averred as to the petitioner in para 5(g) as follows:

"It will not be out of place to mention here that during the pendency of the above said petition No.A415/2003, a provisional settlement was arrived at between the defendant and Santosh on 30-12-2003 before the Marriage Conciliator under which the defendant agreed to stay with her husband Santosh from 8-1-2004 on trial basis. That from 8-1-2004 onwards, the defendant started living with her husband Santosh on trial basis and both of them used to appear before the Family Court at Nagpur on various dates....."

(Quoted from page 21 of the Misc. Civil Application Paper-book).

8. The plaintiff claims as to his son's separate residence in house owned by him in para 5(g) as follows:

".... .In these circumstances, the plaintiff has told his son Santosh to live separately and from last two months, the husband of the defendant Santosh is residing