Relief for return of stridhan under Section 19(8) DV Act is maintainable before Family Court.

The respondent-husband instituted FCOP No. 528 of 2022 before the Family Court, Erode, seeking dissolution of marriage.

On the wife’s transfer petition, the matter was transferred to the Principal Family Court, Coimbatore, and renumbered as HMOP No. 501 of 2023 pursuant to an order dated 12 December 2022 in Tr.CMP No. 1277 of 2022.

During the pendency of the HMOP, the petitioner-wife filed I.A. Sr. No. 7518 of 2023 seeking a direction to the husband to return the original document described in the schedule to the application.

The Principal Family Judge returned the application with an endorsement questioning its maintainability under Section 26 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and requiring correction of the provision of law.

Without re-presenting the application with an explanation, the wife invoked Article 227 of the Constitution seeking a direction to the Family Court to number the application.

Whether an application seeking return of property or a valuable security, allegedly retained by the husband, is maintainable before the Family Court under Sections 19(8) and 26 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, read with Section 7(2)(b) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

Whether the High Court should direct the Principal Family Court to number and adjudicate the wife’s interlocutory application despite her failure to comply with the return endorsement before approaching the High Court.

The Court applied Section 19(8) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, under which the Magistrate may direct the respondent to return to the aggrieved person her stridhan or other property or valuable security to which she is entitled.

Section 26 permits reliefs available under Sections 18 to 22 of the Act, including relief concerning return of property under Section 19, to be sought in any legal proceeding before a Civil Court, Family Court, or Criminal Court affecting the aggrieved person and the respondent.

Section 7(2)(b) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 confers on a Family Court such other jurisdiction as may be granted by any other enactment.

On a conjoint reading of these provisions, the Court held that the Family Court possesses jurisdiction to entertain the wife’s application.

The High Court also exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to prevent further delay.

The wife’s application sought the return of an original document allegedly constituting property or valuable security in her entitlement. Such relief falls within the scope of Section 19(8) of the Domestic Violence Act.

By virtue of Section 26, the same relief may be sought in a pending proceeding before a Family Court, and Section 7(2)(b) of the Family Courts Act enables that court to exercise jurisdiction conferred by another enactment.

Accordingly, the Family Court’s endorsement questioning the maintainability of the application was legally unsustainable.

Although the wife ought first to have re-presented the application with an explanation addressing the endorsement, the High Court considered that requiring further procedural compliance would cause delay and therefore exercised Article 227 jurisdiction to direct numbering of the application, subject to it being otherwise in order.

The petitioner-wife was directed to re-present I.A. Sr. No. 7518 of 2023 before the Family Court within one week of receiving the order.

Upon such representation, the Principal Family Court, Coimbatore, was directed to number the application in HMOP No. 501 of 2023, if otherwise in order, and permit the husband to file a counter.

The application was directed to be tried along with the HMOP.

The Family Court was further directed to dispose of HMOP No. 501 of 2023 on or before 31 December 2026, and the revision was disposed of without costs.