Delhi High Court - Orders
Rakesh Kumar & Ors vs Atal Kaur on 2 July, 2025
Author: Anup Jairam Bhambhani
Bench: Anup Jairam Bhambhani
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA 551/2025
RAKESH KUMAR & ORS. .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Sudhir Naagar, Mr. Piyush
Aggarwal and Mr. Manohar Naggar,
Advocates.
versus
ATAL KAUR .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
ORDER
% 02.07.2025 CM APPL. 36406/2025 (exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions. Let requisite compliances be made within 01 week. The application stands disposed-of.
CM APPL. 36407/2025 (exemption from filing Trial Court Record) By way of the present application filed under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 ('CPC'), the appellants seek exemption from filing the entire trial court.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, which is duly supported by affidavit, the application is allowed.
3. Let trial court record be requisitioned in electronic form; and copy of TCR be supplied to counsel on request.
4. Application stands disposed-of.
RFA 551/2025 Page 1 of 4This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/07/2025 at 22:00:43 RFA 551/2025
5. By way of the present regular first appeal filed under section 96 CPC, the appellants impugn judgment and decree dated 29.03.2025 passed by the learned District Judge, Family Court, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, New Delhi in suit bearing CS No.12/2022.
6. Issue notice.
7. Mr. Deepak Arora, learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent on advance copy; and accepts notice.
8. Re-notify on 17th September 2025 before the learned Joint-Registrar for completion of pleadings in the applications.
9. No reply is required in the appeal.
10. List before court thereafter.
CM APPL. 36405/2025 (for stay)
11. The appellants impugn judgment and decree dated 29.03.2025, principally on the ground that the decree has been passed by the learned Family Court which had no jurisdiction over the dispute.
12. Learned counsel for the appellants draws attention to Explanation (d) to section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, to submit that only if the suit was "arising out of a marital relationship" could it have been entertained by the learned Family Court; and considering the averments in the plaint, in particular in paras 5, 6, and 19 thereof, and the nature of the relief sought, it is clear that the respondent (mother) had filed the suit against the appellants (her son, daughter-in-law and grandson), arising not from any matrimonial relationship, but independently, in exercise of the respondent's property rights in civil law.
RFA 551/2025 Page 2 of 4This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/07/2025 at 22:00:43
13. Counsel explains that the essence of the claim in the suit was that the appellants were occupying the subject premises as licensees of the respondent; and that despite a notice dated 15.07.2022 having been issued to them to vacate the subject premises, they had failed to do so. Counsel accordingly argues, that the foundational fact on which the suit was based was the termination of the license, or the withdrawal of permission by the respondent whereby she had earlier permitted the appellants to reside in her property.
14. To support his submissions, counsel draws attention to the position of law enunciated by a Division Bench of this court vide judgment dated 01st April 2024 in Geeta Anand vs. Tanya Arjun & Anr.1, where, while answering a reference, it has been explained as follows:
"Each of the categories under Section 7(1)(a) of the Act2 are undoubtedly civil in nature. Since the principal question therein relates to a civil right, there is no gainsaying that when claim is made about ownership rights and relief is sought in the nature of possession or injunction and/or damages, such legal rights are to be considered de hors the matrimonial relationship. The proprietorship rights or ownership rights to immovable property are not integral to maintaining the matrimonial relationship. Such rights may be claimed as against a third person or anyone in the family or for that matter somebody connected through matrimonial relationship.
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 foundational 1 CS(OS) 601/2022 2 reference being to Family Courts Act, 1984 RFA 551/2025 Page 3 of 4 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/07/2025 at 22:00:43 fact so as to lay a claim. Such relationship is not at the a 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."
(emphasis supplied)
15. It is accordingly argued, that the suit filed by the respondent could only have been entertained by a Civil Judge and a Family Court had no jurisdiction to entertain, try or decide the suit.
16. Issue notice.
17. Mr. Deepak Arora, learned counsel appears on behalf of respondent on advance copy; accepts notice; and seeks time to file reply.
18. Let reply to the application be filed within 06 weeks; rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within 04 weeks thereafter; with copy to the opposing counsel.
19. Re-notify on 17th September 2025 before the learned Joint-Registrar for completion of pleadings in this application.
20. List before court thereafter.
21. On a prima facie view of the matter, and in view of what the record shows, it appears therefore that the impugned judgment and decree have been passed by a court viz., the Family Court which had no jurisdiction over the matter.
22. Accordingly, the effect and operation of judgment and decree dated 29.03.2025 shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing before this court.
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J JULY 2, 2025 ss RFA 551/2025 Page 4 of 4 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/07/2025 at 22:00:43