The main legal point established is the interpretation of the jurisdiction of the Family Court under the Family Courts Act, 1984 in property disputes involving parties to a marriage.

JUDGMENT

Mukta Gupta, J. - Plaintiff, who is the mother-in-law of defendant No. 1 and mother of defendant No. 2 has filed the present suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them or their agents, representatives etc. from entering and creating disturbance in the peaceful possession and occupation of the plaintiff to the premises bearing No. K-1/48, Model Town, Part II, Delhi-110009 (in short, the "suit property). Case of the plaintiff is that she purchased the suit property consisting of ground floor, first floor and second floor for a valuable consideration vide registered sale deed dated 29th August, 2017 and after the purchase thereof, she constructed the suit property which is a self acquired property of the plaintiff with no semblance of a Joint Hindu Family or ancestral property. The plaintiff''s husband is a senior citizen and suffering from various ailments. Defendant No. 1 who is the daughter-in-law of the plaintiff was married to defendant No. 2, her son on 19th January, 2016 and due to violent and unpredictable behaviour of defendant No. 1, there is a matrimonial discord between the defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 1 left the suit property on 4th November, 2016 and since defendant No. 1 was living with her parents, defendant No. 2 also moved out of the suit property and started staying separately. Thus, the plaintiff claims that the defendants have no right, title or interest in the suit property.

2. It is the case of the plaintiff that on 5th November, 2016, defendant No. 1 went to her parents'' place along with her belongings and valuables and despite the best efforts of the plaintiff and her husband to try to settle the disputes between the defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 to save their marriage, due to adamant behaviour of defendant No. 1, no result was forthcoming. Defendant No. 2 thus filed the divorce petition on the ground of fraud and cruelty against defendant No. 1 which proceedings are pending before the Family Courts, Rohini. Since defendant No. 2 is also not residing in the suit property and has filed the divorce petition, defendant No. 1 has no right to come to the suit property. The suit premises is neither the matrimonial home of the defendant No. 1 nor a shared household.

3. Summons were issued to the defendants and written statements were filed both by defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Defendant No. 2 has supported the stand of the plaintiff, however, the stand of the defendant No. 1 in the written statement is that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff in collusion with defendant No. 2 and this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in terms of Notification No. 45/Rules/DHC dated 23rd December, 2016 issued by this Court also as per the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in CS(OS) 411/2010 & IA 12186/2010, reported as Amina Bharatram Vs. Sumant Bharatram and Ors, (2016) 231 DLT 682 (DB). decided on 19th July, 2016. It is claimed that the defendant No. 1 has a right to reside in the suit property as during the talks of marriage, it was portrayed to the defendant No. 1 that defendant No. 2 had contributed a sum of Rs. 1 Crore for the purchase of the suit property and had spent around Rs. 55 lakhs for the construction of the suit property. Defendant No. 2 being the only son of the plaintiff and her husband, was entitled to equal share in the suit property as he was running the business and was actively involved in earning huge profits in the said business of wholesale fabrics by the name of Vimla Dupatta Private Ltd. Defendant No. 2 is one of the Directors of the said company of which the two other Directors were his parents.

4. After the pleadings and admission-denial of documents were completed vide order dated 12th April, 2019, this Court framed a preliminary issue i.e. "Whether this matter is liable to be transferred to the Family Courts? OPD-1''. Hence, parties have addressed arguments on the preliminary issue.

5. Le