SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(Bom) 28

M.h.LJ. 2009(2) 255
ANOOP V.MOHTA, J.
Sudipta Sanjeeb Chakraborty -Petitioner
Vs.
Sanjeeb Chakraborty -Respondent.
WRIT PETITION NO. 623 OF 2008
Decided on: 7TH JANUARY, 2009.

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared
Mr.Shraddhanand Bhutada with Parineet Soratkar i/by
M/s. S.S.P.Legal for the Petitioner.
Mr.Abhijit Sarawate i/by Smt. Kokila Katra for the
Respondent.

Headnote:Family Courts Act, 1984 - Section 7 - Basic and fundamental suit is for divorce filed before Family Court at Bandra - Any matter incidental to said matrimonial matter falls within ambit of said section - Family Court, Bandra has no territorial jurisdiction to decide application for injunction filed by wife concerning flat at pune. (Paras 8 to 11)

       

JUDGMENT:-

Heard finally, by consent.

2. The Petitioner/ wife has challenged the impugned order dated 01/11/2007, passed by the Family Court, Mumbai whereby her application is dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction with regard to the dispute about flat situated at Pune, thereby not granted interim injunction / relief as prayed.

3. The parties married on 28th March, 2003 as per the provisions of Special Marriage Act, at Mumbai. They continued to reside in Mumbai after their marriage. On 07/10/2006 the wife / Petitioner filed a Petition under Section 27(d) of the Special Marriage Act. As alleged during the marriage they jointly purchased the flat bearing No.401 situated on 4th floor of building known as "Marigold", A-8, Gulmohar City, Khardi, Pune. The Respondent-husband inducted tenants in the said flat. In view of apprehension that he would create some more encumbrance or third party rights, the Petitioner moved an interim Application No.288 of 2006, seeking an injunction against the Respondent and 50% rent of the said flat.

4. On 04/08/2007, the Respondent-husband replied and resisted the said application including issue about the territorial jurisdiction as the flat is located at Pune, beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Family Court, Mumbai. On 01/11/2007, by the impugned order the Petitioner’s interim application is rejected on the ground of want of jurisdiction. Hence the present Writ Petition.

5. Section 7 of the Family Court Act (for short, "The Act") reads as under:-

7. Jurisdiction Jurisdiction:- (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a Family Court shall- (a) have and exercise all the jurisdiction exercisable by any district court or any subordinate civil court under any law for the time being in force in respect of suits and proceedings of the nature referred to in the Explanation; and (b) ...... Explanation:- The suits and proceedings referred to in this Sub-section are suits and proceedings of the following nature, namely:- (a) a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage for a decree of nullity of marriage (declaring the marriage to be null and void or, as the case may be, annulling the marriage) or restitution of conjugal rights or judicial separation or dissolution of marriage; (b) .... (c) a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage with respect to the property of the parties or of either of them; (d) a suit or proceeding for an order or injunction in circumstances arising out of a marital relationship; . Section 7 deals with the nature of suits and proceedings which falls under the jurisdiction of "the Family Court". It is clear that those proceedings are governed by the Personal Marriage laws of the parties in disputes. In the present matter, the Special Marriage Act governs the dispute between the parties.

6. Section 16 and 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "CPC") reads thus:- subject-matter situate:- Subject to the pecuniary or other limitations prescribed by any law, suits- (a) for the recovery of immovable property with or without rent or profits, (b) for the partition of immovable property, (c) ... (d) for the determination of any other right to or interest in immovable property, . shall be instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate. 20. Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises- subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction- (a) .... (b) .... (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

7. Section 16 and 20 of the CPC deals that the pecuniary and other limitation prescribed with regard to the institution of the suit in the Court in local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situated.

8. Admittedly, the immovable property is situated at Pune. The Family Court at Bandra has no juri











Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top