The jurisdiction of Family Courts does not extend to property disputes involving in-laws, as such matters are civil in nature and not integral to the marital relationship.

DHARMESH SHARMA, J.

1. A learned Single Judge of the Court noticing a situation of conflict of opinion with regards to the jurisdiction of the Family Courts vis-à-vis Civil Courts as to certain kinds of matrimonial disputes propounded in Manita Khurana v. Indira Khurana 1 and 12010 SCC OnLine Del 225 CS(OS) 601/2022 Page 2 of 37 Meena Kapoor v. Ayushi Rawal2 on the one hand and Avneet Kaur v. Sadhu Singh3 on the other hand, has referred the following questions for our consideration: -

“(a) 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? (b) 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?”

2. The issue arises in the context of interpretation, scope and ambit of Explanation (d) of Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act , 19844 (hereinafter referred to as „subject provision‟) wherein a suit, proceeding for an order or injunction „arising out of a marital relationship’ is to fall under the ambit of the jurisdiction of Family Courts. The primary contestation centres around the question whether the claim of a third party against or involving a party to a marriage, even if he/she is a parent of one of the spouses, should be exclusively tried before the Family Court, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of Civil Court. It flows from the conflicting observations of the Court in the above mentioned cases wherein while the learned Single Judge in Avneet Kaur (supra) held that a suit seeking eviction would be maintainable before Family Courts as marriage is the foundation of 22020 SCC OnLine Del 2481 3 2022:DHC:2453 4FC Act CS(OS) 601/2022 Page 3 of 37 this dispute, the learned Single Judges in the earlier decisions in Manita Khurana (supra) and Meena Kapoor (supra) have taken a different view holding that such suits would be outside the purview of the Family Courts. The aforesaid issue forms the core of Question (a).

3. Question (b) flows from the learned judge concluding that there is an apparent conflict between the above-mentioned decisions regarding the jurisdiction of Family Court depending upon who the litigating parties are, since in Avneet Kaur it was opined that upon the reading of subject provision it cannot be inferred that jurisdiction of Family Courts is limited to litigation between husband and wife. It has been observed that the above is in direct conflict with the judgments in Manita Khurana and Meena Kapoor; and that the same have not referred while giving the decision in Avneet Kaur. The Courts in Manita Khurana and Meena Kapoor had held that based on a mother-in-law‟s exclusive title to property, a suit seeking injunction or eviction filed by her against the daughter-in-law cannot be said to be a suit „in circumstances arising out of a marital relationship‟, thus it cannot be exclusively tried by a Family Court.

4. It would be expedient to briefly refer to the factual narrative of the matters in hand in order to answer the questions that have been formulated for our consideration. The appellant/ plaintiff Ms. Geeta Anand is the mother-in-law of respondent No. 1/defendant No.1 Ms. Tanya Arjun. The marriage between her son Arjun Anand, who is arrayed as respondent No. 2/defendant No.2and respondent No. 1 was solemnised on 10.12.2005. The estranged couple are also parents of two children.

CS(OS) 601/2022 Page 4 of 37

5. The genesis of the suit lies in the disharmony and matrimonial discord between the parties, pertaining especially to the estranged relationship between respondent No. 1andresponde