Family Court jurisdiction requires a direct nexus between the cause of action and the marital relationship.

The appellant filed a suit before the Family Court seeking recovery of ₹20,99,990, alleging that she had transferred ₹47,00,000 to the respondent—her sister-in-law—between 2014 and 2016 as trust money or a loan, and that the respondent had repaid only part of it.

She also claimed interest and compensation for mental agony and reputational loss.

The Family Court refused to register the suit, holding that the dispute did not arise from a marital relationship.

The appellant challenged that order under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

1. Whether a money-recovery suit between a woman and her sister-in-law, based on an alleged loan or trust transaction, falls within the Family Court’s jurisdiction under Section 7(1), Explanation (d), of the Family Courts Act, 1984

2. Whether the Family Court was justified in refusing to register the appellant’s suit as not maintainable before it

Section 7(1), Explanation (d), of the Family Courts Act, 1984, covers suits or proceedings for an order or injunction in circumstances arising out of a marital relationship; the claim must have a direct and intrinsic nexus with that relationship, and a cause of action independent of it falls outside the Family Court’s jurisdiction.

In K.A. Abdul Jaleel v. T.A. Shahida, (2003) 4 SCC 166, the Supreme Court considered Family Court jurisdiction over property claims between spouses, including divorced spouses.

Applying that decision, Vivek Singh v. Yogendra Singh Thakur, AIR 2021 Chhattisgarh 129, held that a claim by a deceased wife’s father to recover property was not maintainable before the Family Court.

The Court also relied on Geeta Anand v. Tanya Arjun, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3535, which held that the foundation and cause of action must be examined to determine whether a direct nexus with the marital relationship exists, and overruled the contrary approach in Avneet Kaur v. Sadhu Singh.

The appellant and respondent were related as sister-in-law and sister-in-law, but that family connection did not make their dispute one arising from a marital relationship.

The claim was founded on an alleged transfer of money as a loan or trust, with recovery sought from the respondent; its cause of action was independent of any marriage between the parties.

The Court therefore held that the claim did not meet the direct-nexus test under Section 7(1), Explanation (d).

The appeal was dismissed at the admission stage, with no order as to costs.