Shashwati Chowdhury
Published on: July 14, 2022 at 19:44 IST
The Delhi High Court has held that when reference to the filing of a suit for an injunction under Clause (d) of the explanation to Section 7 (1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the husband and wife as well as the in-laws may be considered “circumstances arising out of marital relationship.
Whether the circumstances leading up to the filing of the lawsuit were related to a matrimonial relationship, according to a single Bench presided over by Justice C. Hari Shankar.
The Respondents in this case first sued their daughter-in-law (the Petitioner in this case), requesting a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Petitioner from entering their home.
It was alleged that the petitioner in this case harassed the respondents and even went so far as to accuse them of false crimes. The plaint included graphic details of the alleged crimes committed out by police officers at the petitioner’s instance.
In response to this suit, the petitioner hereby filed an application seeking for transfer of the proceedings to the Family Court, relying on Sections 7 and 8 of the Family Courts Act. The clauses delineate the family courts’ jurisdiction.
The same was rejected by the civil court, which noted that under Section 7, family courts have exclusive jurisdiction over disputes between parties to a marriage, i.e., husband and wife.
As a result it was held, the matter does not fall under the purview of Section 7 (1) Explanation (c) & (d) of the Family Courts Act, even though the relationship between the in-laws’ parents and daughter-in-law is a result of marriage.
The test, according to the court, is not whether the cause of action forming the prayer for injunction basis is the result of a marital relationship or whether the plaintiff’s grievance is motivated by the marital relationship. The circumstances surrounding the injunction application are all that need to be considered.
In this case, the High Court stated that, “a marital relationship was the cause of the circumstances that led to the application for an injunction.”
The High Court made a final observation, noting that attempts should be made to give jurisdiction to special Courts or Tribunals rather than to exclude it where questions over jurisdiction emerge after the establishment of such courts or tribunals.
The petition was therefore allowed.
