J U D G M E N T

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. The present Appeal has been filed by the Appellant under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 challenging the order dated 17.04.2025 [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”] passed by the Ld. Principal Judge, Family Court, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Family Court”] in CS(OS) 22/2023 captioned Amit Kumar Jina vs. Smita Jina, whereby an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as “CPC”] filed by the Respondent (Plaintiff before the Family Court) was allowed and it was held that both, the Appellant (Defendant before the Family Court) and the Respondent, are entitled to an equal half share i.e. 50% each in the property bearing no. C-5/18, 2nd Floor, Grand Vasant, Near DPS, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “suit property”].

FACTUAL MATRIX:

2. The brief facts leading to the present Appeal, as pleaded, are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 30.01.2005 in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies at Bhilai, Chhattisgarh. Thereafter, the parties relocated to London, United Kingdom, on 30.07.2006, where they resided together for nearly eight years and subsequently acquired British nationality. Out of the said wedlock, a female child was born on 30.11.2009, who remains in the care and custody of the Appellant. During the subsistence of marriage, the parties jointly purchased the suit property by virtue of a Sale Deed dated 28.06.2010 [hereinafter referred to as “Sale Deed”], duly registered on 01.07.2010 with the Office of the Sub-Registrar, New Delhi. The purchase was funded through a joint housing loan of Rs.2,00,00,000/- obtained from the State Bank of India, Bhilai, with the Appellant’s father acting as a Guarantor. The Appellant had initially contributed GBP 58,000 (approximately Rs.50,00,000/-) towards the purchase of the suit property, and that the parties have continued to service the EMI’s towards the home loan in equal proportion. Thereafter, the parties, along with their minor daughter, returned to India on 31.07.2014. On account of growing matrimonial discord, the parties started living separately since 30.07.2020. Subsequently, a series of legal proceedings were initiated between the parties. The Appellant filed a Complaint Case No. 11/2023 under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [hereinafter referred to as “PWDV Act”], before the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, which is presently pending adjudication. The Respondent instituted guardianship proceedings bearing GP No. 28/2023 inter alia seeking custody of their minor daughter which is also pending adjudication.

3. It is in the aforesaid background that the Respondent sought partition of the suit property, which, according to the Appellant, constitutes her only matrimonial home and continues to be the residence of the Appellant along with the minor daughter. Upon completion of pleadings in the said suit, the Respondent filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, seeking a judgment on the basis of alleged admissions made by the Appellant in her written statement.

4. In parallel, both parties also instituted divorce proceedings by filing cross-petitions under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, [hereinafter referred to as “the HMA”], which culminated in a common judgment and decree dated 20.03.2025 passed by the Family Court, dissolving the marriage under Section 13B of the HMA. The said decree is presently under challenge at the instance of the Appellant in MAT.APP.(F.C.) No. 167/2025, wherein the Respondent has been restrained from solemnising a second marriage in the interregnum.

5. Thereafter, vide the Impugned Order dated 17.04.2025, the Family Court, upon considering the record and the submissions made on behalf of both the parties, allowed the Respondent’s application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC and passed a