The Court emphasised that a matter would fall under the purview of family court only when the circumstances have a direct bearing on the marriage.
The recent ruling by the Delhi High Court indicates that family courts do not possess exclusive jurisdiction over civil suits initiated by in-laws against their daughter-in-law, particularly when the relief sought pertains to possession or injunction.
In a clarification issued by the division bench comprising Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma, it was emphasized that such disputes are within the purview of civil courts for adjudication.
The court underscored that matters would be referred to family courts only if they directly impact the marriage.
Furthermore, the Court highlighted that rights related to property ownership or possession are not inherently linked to the maintenance of marital ties.
“Indeed, when it comes to a dispute as between mother-in-law and/or father-in-law on the one side and their estranged daughter-in-law on the other side, the claim of proprietorship or ownership of a property and thereby seeking relief in the nature of possession and/or injunction by its very nature incidentally indicates a matrimonial relationship, but such relationship is not a foundational fact so as to lay a claim. Such relationship is not at the core of the dispute but exists independently in civil law, and thus, the Family Courts do not exercise exclusive jurisdiction over such disputes and as an inevitable corollary the jurisdiction of Civil Courts is not barred,” the Court held.
The Court delivered its ruling in response to questions referred to it by a single judge, who observed a conflict of opinion among coordinate benches regarding the jurisdiction of family courts versus civil courts in such disputes.
The primary issue addressed by the division bench was whether claims brought forth by third parties such as fathers-in-law or mothers-in-law against either spouse should exclusively fall under the jurisdiction of family courts, thus excluding civil court jurisdiction.
In the case of Avneet Kaur v Sadhu Singh, a single judge had ruled that suits seeking the eviction of a daughter-in-law by her in-laws should be heard before a family court due to the foundational role of marriage in such disputes. However, previous decisions by other judges had held that such suits were beyond the scope of family court jurisdiction.
After considering arguments presented by counsels, as well as the opinions of the amicus curiae Dr. Amit George and relevant case law, the Court concluded that the interpretation of ‘marital relationship’ must transcend the conventional understanding of ‘family’.
“The expression, ‘marital relationship’ when bifurcated brings out that the word ‘marital’ has been defined as ‘of or relating to marriage or relations between husband and wife’ while ‘marriage’ has been defined as a ‘formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognised by law, by which they become husband and wife’,” it explained.
Additionally, the Court stated that every suit or legal proceeding under the Family Courts Act must delineate the ’cause of action’ for its initiation, and this cause must align with matters falling within the purview of family courts’ jurisdiction.
“The cause of action, in order to bring the case under the subject provision and so as to confer jurisdiction upon the family court must encapsulate a tangible averment that the dispute is one which has an intrinsic nexus with the martial relationship,” it said.
The Court emphasized that the circumstances must clearly indicate that the dispute is directly connected to matters essential to the marital relationship.
It clarified that simply having a marital relationship between the parties, even if it’s tangential, cannot serve as the sole basis for bringing the proceedings before a family court.
Consequently, the Court disagreed with the interpretation provided in the Avneet Kaur case, which restricted jurisdiction solely to family courts for such disputes.
“It is likely to open a pandora‟s box, which would risk inclusion of all disputes as between the parents and their married children and even siblings within its ambit,” the division bench said.
The Court agreed with amicus’ argument “that prioritising the cause of action in determining the correct jurisdictional forum also ensures that family courts can maintain their specialized focus on matrimonial matters, avoiding a situation of becoming overburdened with cases unrelated to marital relationships”.
In conclusion, the Court said that the question whether the claim connected to a marital relationship would lie before the family court or the civil court must be examined and answered on an identification of the foundation of the claim.
“An assertion of a particular suit or proceeding being liable to be tried exclusively by the Family Court would succeed only if it is established that there is a direct nexus between the ‘cause of action’ and the ‘marital relationship’.”
Consequently, the Court overturned the Avneet Kaur ruling and aligned itself with the divergent perspectives expressed in other judgments.
Furthermore, the Court clarified that whether or not the husband is named as a party in the lawsuit filed by his parents does not solely determine the jurisdiction of the family court.
“The joinder or non-joinder of parties would have to be considered in light of the plethora of case law which already exists on that issue. Ultimately and irrespective of whether a husband is joined or not, the jurisdiction of the Family Court would have to [be] ascertained based on the cause of action and whether that is founded on the marital relationship or has a mere casual or incidental connection to the cause,” it said.