Anti-suit injunctions in matrimonial cases fall within the jurisdiction of the Family Court under the Family Courts Act, 1984.

MANMOHAN, J.

I.A. 3132/2017

1. Present application has been filed under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for rejection of the plaint, dismissal and return of the suit. However, at the outset, learned counsel for the defendant confined his prayer for return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC.

2. Mr. Anil Malhotra, learned counsel for defendant stated that the anti-suit injunction sought by the plaintiff-wife pertained to a suit/proceeding in relation to guardianship and custody/access of two minor children which fell within the ambit and scope of Section 7(1) Explanations (d) and (g) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

3. He submitted that Section 7(1) Explanation (d) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 enumerates that "a suit or proceeding for an order or injunction in circumstances arising out of a marital relationship", and Section 7(1) Explanation (g) states that, "a suit or proceeding in relation to the guardianship of the person or the custody of, or access to, any minor," shall fall within the jurisdiction of the Family Court. He stated that Section 8 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, stipulates that no District Court shall "exercise any jurisdiction in respect of any suit or proceeding of the nature referred to in the Explanation" of Section 7(1) of the Act. Hence, according to him, any suit or proceeding for an order or injunction in circumstances arising out of a marital relationship or guardianship/custody shall lie only before the Family Court.

4. Mr. Malhotra further submitted that in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Amina Bharatram Vs. Sumant Bharatram and Ors., CS(OS) 411/2010 dated 19th July, 2016 and the practice directions dated 23rd December, 2016, issued by the Registrar of this Court, any petition for matrimonial cause under the Hindu Marriage Act (now, Family Courts Act) has to be filed in the District Court of competent jurisdiction.

5. Mr. Malhotra pointed out that in Minakshi Sahlot Vs. Gourav Choudhary, CS(OS) No.340/2016 dated 27th October, 2016, a Coordinate Bench of this Court following Amina Bharatram (Supra) has held that in cases seeking anti-suit injunction arising/emanating from a matrimonial relationship would have to be transferred to the Family Court.

6. Mr. Malhotra emphasised that in the case of Minakshi Sahlot (Supra) a Coordinate Bench had distinguished and clarified the earlier judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Suraj Seth Vs. Ruchika Abbi, 2014 SCC OnLine Del.6999.

7. Per contra, Ms. Malavika Rajkotia, learned counsel for plaintiff wife submitted that in case of Suraj Seth (Supra) a Coordinate Bench of this Court has held that an anti-suit injunction filed by the defendant-wife against her plaintiff-husband seeking orders to restrain him from prosecuting a case instituted by her in New York, USA, cannot be said to be a proceeding in relation to the guardianship of any person or the custody of, or access to any minor. The relevant portion of the judgment in Suraj Seth (Supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for plaintiff-wife is reproduced here-in-below:-

"9. ...Anti suit injunction is claimed to debar the Defendant from prosecuting the proceedings before the Court in USA and thus, the instant suit cannot be said to be to obtain an order of injunction arising out of a marital relationship. Similarly, the instant suit cannot be said to be a proceeding in relation to the guardianship of any person or the custody of, or access to any minor....

10. Irrespective of the fact that whether the Plaintiff has any cause on merits or not it cannot be said that the suit is barred in view of provisions of Section 7 of the Act."

8. She admitted that a similar issue had been raised in the case of Minakshi Sahlot (Supra), in which the anti-suit injunction had been directed to be transferred to the Family Court. She, however, pointed out that in the said case the Division Bench in an appeal being FAO(OS) 329/2016 had made the following observations vide its order dated 16th November,