The conflict between judgments in interpreting Explanation (d) to Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act and the jurisdiction of the Family Court in cases involving in-laws and exclusive ownership claims.

Headnote:
CPC - Jurisdiction of Family Court - Section 7(1) Explanation (d) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 - [Order VII Rule 11 of CPC] - [Section 7(1) Explanation (d) of the Family Courts Act, 1984] - [Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the interpretation and conflict between judgments in Avneet Kaur v. Sadhu Singh & Anr., 2022/DHC/2453, Manita Khurana v. Indra Khurana, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 225, Meena Kapoor v. Ayushi Rawal & Anr., 2020 SCC OnLine Del 2481, Assa Singh (D) by LRs v. Shanti Parshad (D) by LRs & Ors., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1064, Manpreet Kaur v. Harjyot Singh, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 2487, Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., (2005)2 SCC 673, S. Vanitha v. The Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District and Ors., (2021)15 SCC 730, K.A. Abdul Jaleel v. T.A. Shahida, (2003)4 SCC 166, Vidyanidhi Dalmia v. Nilanajana Dalmia, 2008 SCC OnLine Del 371] - The court analyzed the conflict between judgments in interpreting Explanation (d) to Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act and framed issues for consideration by a Larger Bench.
Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff, mother-in-law of the defendant no.1, filed a suit seeking a decree of Permanent Injunction against the defendant no.1 and her relatives, agents, associates, and/or employees, restraining them from visiting or entering the Suit Property. The defendant no.1 sought rejection of the plaint on the ground that the exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute lies with the Family Court in terms of Section 7(1) Explanation (d) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
Finding of the Court:

The court found an apparent conflict between the interpretation of Explanation (d) to Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act in different judgments. It framed issues for consideration by a Larger Bench to determine the jurisdiction of the Family Court and the effect of impleadment or non-impleadment of the husband of the defendant/son of the plaintiff on the maintainability of such a suit before a Civil Court.
Issues: Whether a suit for possession/injunction filed by the in-laws of the defendant or either of them, claiming themselves or either of them to be the exclusive owner of the property of which the possession is sought or with respect to which injunction is prayed for from or against the defendant/daughter- in-law, is to be tried exclusively by the Family Court established under the Family Courts Act, and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred? Whether the impleadment or non-impleadment of the husband of the defendant/son of the plaintiff has any effect on the maintainability of such a suit before a Civil Court?
Ratio Decidendi: The court analyzed the conflict between judgments in interpreting Explanation (d) to Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act and framed issues for consideration by a Larger Bench.
Final Decision: The court directed the Registry to place the matter before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for appropriate directions and listed the application for further orders on 25th August, 2023.

JUDGMENT

I.A. 606/2023

1. The present application has been filed by the defendant no.1 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short `CPC') seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute raised in the plaint lies with the Family Court in terms of Section 7(1) Explanation (d) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as `Family Courts Act').

CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF

2. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff, who is the mother-in-law of the defendant no.1 and the mother of the defendant no.2, praying for the following reliefs:

"a. Pass a decree of Permanent Injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant No. 1 her relatives, agents, associates and/or employees thereby restraining them from visiting or entering the Suit Property at No. 26, Anand Lok, New Delhi-110049 and interfering in the peaceful life of the Plaintiff,

b. Award the cost of the present suit in favor of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants."

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that she, along with her Company AG Industries Pvt. Ltd., acquired the Suit Property bearing no. 26, Anand Lok, New Delhi-110049 vide Sale Deeds dated 23.03.2007, 02.11.2004 and 02.11.2004. The defendant no.2 is the son of the plaintiff and was residing with her in the suit property.

4. The defendant no.1 and defendant no.2 entered into a wedlock on 10.12.2005, and have been blessed with two children.

5. The plaintiff avers that the defendant no.1 was aggressive and abusive towards her and, therefore, in May, 2019, the plaintiff asked the defendants to move out of the Suit Property, but allowed them to live at her residential apartment at A-109, 9th Floor, DLF King's Court, Greater Kailash Part II, New Delhi-110048.

6. The plaintiff further avers that in the last week of June, 2022, the defendants, through a family friend, reconciled their inter se dispute and entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 28.06.2022 (hereinafter referred to as the `MOU'). The plaintiff is also a signatory to the MOU. In terms of Clause 6 (b) of the MOU, it was agreed that the defendant no.1 shall move into the DLF property and remove her belongings and stop access to the suit property unless particularly invited by the plaintiff. Clause 6(c) of the MOU states that the plaintiff, in turn, would repay the loan taken on the DLF property and, thereafter, transfer the DLF property to the defendant no.1 and the children of the defendants.

7. The plaintiff asserts that while she performed her part of the obligations under the MOU, the defendant no.1 resiled out of the same, alleging that the MOU had been signed under duress. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant no.1 again started intimidating and harassing the plaintiff while whimsically barging into the suit property against the plaintiff's wishes and threatening to squat there until her illegal demands are met.

8. The plaintiff bases her cause of action to file the suit as under:

"45. That the cause of action for filing the present suit arose on 28.06.2022 when Tanya signed the MoU and agreed to vacate the Suit Property within 7 days of the completion of the renovation work. It again arose on 29.08.2022 when Tanya failed to comply with the MoU and vacate the Suit Property. The cause of action again arose on 30.09.2022 when Tanya unilaterally reneged from the MoU. The cause of action is still continuing and subsisting as Tanya has been visiting the Suit Property against Ms. Anand's wishes and threatened to squat there until her illegal demands are met. Ms. Anand fears that Tanya, while in the house, may create more trouble and cause harm to Ms. Anand."

SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT NO.1

9. As noted hereinabove, the defendant no.1 has filed the present application stating that, as the suit seeks an injunction `in circumstances arising out of matrimonial relationship', the exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicat