The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Clause (d) of the explanation to Section 7 (1) of the Family Courts Act, emphasizing that the circumstances in which the injunction was sought must arise out of the marital relationship between the parties.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. This petition raises an interesting and, to large extent, res integra, question relating to the exact interpretation of Clause (d) of the explanation to Section 7 (1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984¹ .

2. This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails an order dated 30th October, 2019, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, in Suit 12114/2016 (Sadhu Singh v. Avneet Kaur).

3. Suit 12114/2016, from which the dispute germinates, was filed by the respondents against the petitioner. The respondents are the mother-in-law and father-in-law of the petitioner, who is their daughter-in-law.

4. Given the nature of the controversy, it is necessary to peruse, in explicit detail, the exact nature of the case set up by the respondents in their plaint.

5. The facts as pleaded in the plaint may be set out, in precis, thus:

5.1. S. Pardip Singh ("Pardip", in short) the son of the respondents, married the petitioner on 15th October, 2013. A son was born to the couple, on 15th December 2014. The behaviour of the petitioner towards the respondents became abnormal, a few months after the marriage.

5.2. On Respondent 2, the mother-in-law of the petitioner, taking up the issue with Pardip, he advised her to guide the petitioner to be more responsible towards the family. Following this advice, Respondent 2 called the petitioner's mother and requested her to advise the petitioner accordingly. The petitioner's mother agreed to do so.

5.3. Even so, that evening, the petitioner's mother called Respondent 2 and, in harsh terms, warned her not to criticize her daughter, i.e. the petitioner, ever again and to stay away from the petitioner's life.

5.4. Respondent 1 requested the petitioner's father to send the petitioner back to the residence of the respondents, as it was her matrimonial home. Thereafter, a meeting took place between the respondents and the petitioner's parents. Though the meeting was acrimonious, in order to attempt to save the marriage of the petitioner with their son, the respondents brought the petitioner back to their home.

5.5. Later, however, the petitioner again returned to her parents' home with Pardip. On Respondent 2 contacting Pardip while he was at the house of the petitioner's parents, the petitioner took umbrage and asked Pardip to return home. It was alleged that, in a huff, the petitioner returned to her matrimonial home, and that Pardip accompanied her. The plaint makes serious allegations about the conduct of the petitioner even after she thus returned to her matrimonial home.

6. To cut a long story short, the plaint goes on to allege that the petitioner continued to harass the respondent and went to the extent of involving them in false criminal cases. Repeated attempts by the respondents to pacify the petitioner and salvage the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent, it was alleged, were of no avail, and the alleged harassment of the respondents, by the petitioner, kept increasing. It was also alleged that the petitioner sent telephonic messages to Respondent 2, maligning Respondent 2, alleging that she was spoiling the petitioner's family life and threatening to teach her a lesson.

7. The plaint further asserts that, vide Gift Deed dated 29th December, 2015, Pardip gifted 50% of his share in the suit property, which was the matrimonial home of the petitioner, to Respondent 2 who, thereby became absolute owner of 50% in the suit property.

8. Continuing with the allegations against the petitioner, the plaint asserts that, on 4th September, 2015, the petitioner returned to her parents' house and, on 6th September, 2015, demanded Rs.3 lakhs from Pardip to book a Banquet hall to celebrate the forthcoming birthday of her son. On Pardip requesting the petitioner to return to her matrimonial home, the petitioner, infuriated, returned, packed her belongings and went back to her parents' house, from which she never came back.

9. Thereafter, the petitioner is alleged to h