### Ownership-Based Injunction Suit by In-Laws Not Barred by Family Courts Act if Independent of Marital Relationship

The petitioner (daughter-in-law) challenged an order dated 26.07.2023 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Shahdara, which dismissed her application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC

The respondent No. 1 (mother-in-law) filed a civil suit seeking mandatory and permanent injunction to evict the petitioner from a property she claims is her self-acquired house

The petitioner contended that as the dispute arose from a matrimonial relationship, the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction and the matter should be transferred to a Family Court under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984

Procedurally, the petitioner relied on the precedent Avneet Kaur v. Sadhu Singh, while the respondent focused on her independent proprietary rights

1. Whether a suit for injunction filed by a mother-in-law against a daughter-in-law regarding self-acquired property is exclusively triable by a Family Court as a "circumstances arising out of a marital relationship" under Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act?

2. Whether the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to entertain such a suit when the claim is founded on ownership rights rather than the matrimonial status of the parties?

Section 7(1) Explanation (c) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, which defines the jurisdiction of Family Courts

Division Bench judgment in Geeta Anand v. Tanya Arjun Anr. (2024), which established that for a Family Court to have jurisdiction, there must be a "direct nexus" between the cause of action and the marital relationship

The principle from Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja (2021) regarding the maintainability of eviction suits in civil courts even in cases involving shared households

The court analyzed whether the foundation of the suit was the marital relationship or independent property rights. Citing the Geeta Anand precedent, the court noted that the expression "circumstances arising out of marital relationship" cannot be interpreted so broadly as to include every dispute between relatives

The court found that Respondent No. 1’s claim was based on her status as the absolute owner of the property and the alleged harassment/trespass by the petitioner’s relatives, which exists independently of the petitioner’s marriage to respondent No. 2

The court observed that the marital relationship was merely incidental or a "nomenclature of the relationship" and not the "foundational fact" of the litigation

Consequently, the court held that the Civil Court's jurisdiction was not barred because the proprietary rights being enforced did not stem from the marriage

The court also waived the previously imposed costs of Rs. 10,000 on the petitioner due to her financial constraints and vacated the interim stay on the trial court proceedings