By Family Courts
Copyright thehindu
Property disputes between spouses can be dealt only by Family Courts and no district court or any other subordinate civil court can entertain a suit with respect to the properties held either jointly or individually by the husband and wife, the Madras High Court has held.
Justice P.B. Balaji passed the ruling while allowing a civil revision petition filed by a woman who was aggrieved against the April 30, 2025 refusal of the Tiruvallur Principal District Court to return the plaint filed by her husband with regard to a property dispute between the couple.
The judge agreed with the revision petitioner’s counsel S.P. Arthi that explanation to Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act of 1984 states that a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage, with respect to the joint property of the parties or of either of them, could be instituted before a Family Court.
Further, Section 8 of the Act categorically states no district court or any subordinate civil court referred to in Section 7(1), in relation to such area, could have or exercise any jurisdiction in respect of any suit or proceeding of the nature referred to in the explanation to that legal provision.
Therefore, no other court, but for the Family Court, could assume jurisdiction and entertain suits related to property disputes between married couples, Justice Balaji said and set aside the order passed by the the Tiruvallur Principal District Court which had refused to return the plaint to the present petitioner’s husband.
Observing that the plaint could be presented only before the Family Court, the judge refused to accept the argument of the husband’s counsel that the suit could not be filed before the Family Court since the Inspector General of Registration had also been included as one of the defendants.
“I am unable to countenance the said argument of the learned counsel for the first respondent (husband). Merely by impleading the Inspector General of Registration and seeking for a permanent injunction against the statutory authority that he should not entertain any registration in respect of the immovable property, which is the subject matter of the suit, will not take away the exclusive jurisdiction vested with the Family Court,” the judge wrote.
Justice Balaji also rejected the other argument that the present petitioner ought to have filed only an appeal and not a revision petition against the district judge’s refusal to return the plaint. Relying upon a few citations, the judge said: “I hold that the revision under Article 227 of the Constitution is maintainable before this court.”
