The Family Court has jurisdiction to grant relief under the Domestic Violence Act, and its findings cannot be overturned by a Single Judge under Article 227 without a clear jurisdictional error.

JUDGMENT :

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)

1. This Letters Patent appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 05.05.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in allowing the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and setting aside the order dated 07.12.2019 passed by the Family Court, Ahmedabad on the application below Exh.15 filed in Family Suit No.834 of 2019 treating it as an interlocutory order. The appellant herein is the wife, whose marriage with the respondent, the original petitioner and plaintiff before the Family Court, has been solemnized on 05.07.2018.

2. From the facts recorded in the judgment impugned of the learned Single Judge, it may be noted that for both the original petitioner (husband) and the respondent wife (namely the appellant herein), (referred to hereinafter as the “original petitioner” and “respondent wife” in the same manner) it was their second marriage. The learned Single Judge has recorded that the original petitioner got divorce from his earlier wife and gave an advertisement for marriage in the newspaper along with his mobile number. The respondent wife contacted him looking to the matrimonial advertisement and told the petitioner that she was a spinster (unmarried) and expressed her desire to marry. Since, the respondent wife was a Christian by religion, a registered marriage was performed on 05.07.2018 and, thereafter, the original petitioner had left to Canada on 06.08.2018 as his tickets were already booked prior to marriage.

3. It was, however, stated by the original petitioner that on 02.08.2018, he received a letter through post, which contained the decree of divorce of the respondent wife and he was shocked by the fact and felt cheated by the respondent wife, who presented herself of being a spinster (unmarried person) at the time of marriage.

4. Be that as it may, the original petitioner left to Canada on 06.08.2018 after handing over the possession of the house namely the house in question (105, Shalin Heights -2, Narol, Ahmedabad), a flat to his parents and the statement in the judgment impugned is that the father of the petitioner is paying maintenance, taxes and the electricity bill of the residential property, the house in question.

5. On 15.11.2018, the petitioner returned from Canada and immediately thereafter sent a legal notice to the respondent wife warning her not to use the surname and the photograph of the original petitioner as being her husband. It was further contended that after receiving the notice, the respondent wife took forcible possession of the house in question, which is a residential property and the shop in the same building. It is noted in the judgment impugned that on the date of the aforesaid incident, the original petitioner was in Canada and his parents were at their relative’s house.

6. The contention of the original petitioner was that the respondent wife had committed an act of criminal trespass on 12.11.2018 by entering into the house of the original petitioner (the house in question) and has misappropriated the household articles, gold ornaments and cash and other valuables lying in the house. A family Suit No.2446 of 2018 was also filed by the respondent wife before the Family Court on 19.11.2018 along with an injunction application which was rejected on 21.02.2019.

7. It was further contended that on the same grounds and contentions, the respondent wife filed application Exhibit ‘15’ under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short as “the DV Act”) as an interim application in the Family Suit No.894 of 2019 (the suit concerned) filed by the original petitioner before the Family Court. It was further stated that the respondent wife did not proceed with the Family Suit being Family Suit No.2446 of 2018 filed by her and the same was dismissed for want of prosecution on 07.12.2019.

8. It was contended that the respondent wife does not have any right, title or interest over the