Delhi High Court - Orders
Nirmal Sahni vs Sonia Sahni & Anr on 19 May, 2026
Author: Amit Sharma
Bench: Amit Sharma
$~54
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ TR.P.(C.) 134/2025 & CM APPL. 45883/2025
NIRMAL SAHNI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arun Vohra, Mr. Dilip Kr. and
Ms. Aakriti Vohra, Advocates.
versus
SONIA SAHNI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Vikas Arora, Ms. Radhika Arora,
Mr. Mohd. Azhar and Ms. Rashi Priya,
Advocates for R-1.
Mr. Ashish Negi, Advocate for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA
ORDER
% 19.05.2026
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition under Section 24 read with Section 151 of the CPC seeks the following prayers: -
"(i) Transfer of civil suit bearing CS No. 32/2022 title Gulshan Sahni & Anr.
vs Gaurav Sahni & Anr. pending before Ld. Judge-02, Family Court, South District, Sak District Courts, Delhi filed by the Petitioner to the competent Court of Ld. Civil Judge, South District, Saket District Courts, Delhi;
b) Pass any such order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of this case."
3. By way of the present petition, the petitioner seeks transfer of Civil Suit being CS No. 32/2022, instituted on her behalf and pending in the Court of learned Family Court, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, to learned Civil Judge, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi.
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 21/05/2026 at 21:15:36
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially the subject suit was instituted by her husband-Gulsan Sahni, before the learned Civil Judge, South, Saket, New Delhi, and the same was returned under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC to be presented before learned Family Court, vide order dated 20.10.2022 passed by learned Civil Judge-01, South, Saket. It is further submitted that thereafter, in view of judgement passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in Geeta Anand v. Tanya Arjun and Anr. 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2327, the learned Family Court, during the course of proceedings, had observed that the subject suit is to be transferred to the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction; as after passing of the said judgment, the said Court no longer had jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the subject matter. As per the judgment of the learned Division Bench in Geeta Anand (supra), the learned Family Court has no jurisdiction over the matter and the subject suit is to be tried and adjudicated by the learned Civil Judge. It is further submitted that the subject suit is currently at the stage of cross-examination of plaintiff, and in case, the plaint is again returned under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC, the trial have to be commenced de novo and same would amount to an undesirable situation and would unnecessarily delay the outcome of the subject suit.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has handed up in Court today a reply raising certain objections with respect to the present petition, and the same is taken on record. It is stated that as per the judgment passed in Geeta Anand (supra), the learned Family Court does not have exclusive jurisdiction to try the subject suit, and the same has to be tried by Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, and therefore, any proceedings which have taken place before the learned Family Court, which lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate 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 21/05/2026 at 21:15:36 upon the matter, are non-est, as the issue of jurisdiction strikes at the root of the matter. It is further submitted that any proceedings before such Court would be nullity and are bound to be taken afresh before the competent Court of jurisdiction. It is further submitted that there has been change in circumstances in the subject suit, inasmuch as earlier, the suit was instituted by the father-in-law of respondent No.1, and he has since passed away, and the suit is being presently pursued by her mother-in-law (the present petitioner/plaintiff). It is further pointed out that respondent no. 2, i.e., the son of the petitioner, has been declared an absconder. It is further submitted that after the demise of father-in-law of respondent no. 1, i.e., Gulshan Sahani, the subject property which is the subject matter of the suit, has devolved upon his legal heirs, i.e., the petitioner and respondent no.2 herein and Bhawana Mehta (daughter of the present petitioner and her husband).
6. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 appears and submits that he has no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed, and the subject suit is transferred for adjudication before the Court of competent jurisdiction in South District, Saket Courts.
7. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
8. The subject suit was initially filed on behalf of the petitioner and her husband seeking permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendants (respondents herein) before the learned Civil Judge, Saket. The plaint in the subject suit was returned under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC to be presented before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, in view of the order dated 20.10.2022 passed by learned Civil Judge, Saket, Delhi.
9. The learned Division Bench of this Court in Geeta Anand (supra) had 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 21/05/2026 at 21:15:36 observed and held as under: -
"42. Thus, in our considered opinion, the question whether the claim laid before the Family Court or the civil court falls within the ambit of the expression "in circumstances arising out of marital relationship" must be examined and answered on an identification of the foundation of the claim, the underlying basis for the institution of the suit or the proceedings. Thus, there must be an intrinsic and unwavering connection between the proceeding and the marital relationship. This would necessarily entail the court analysing the cause of action and its relation with the marital relationship--the interrelation and interdependence between the two being determinative of the question. An assertion of a particular suit or proceeding being liable to be tried exclusively by the Family Court would succeed only if it is established that there is a direct nexus between the "cause of action" and the "marital relationship". A cause of action which is shown to exist independent of the marital relationship would clearly take the matter outside the purview of the Family Court. What needs to be emphasised is that a matter would fall under the purview of Family Court only where the circumstances have a direct bearing on the marriage. It is not the relationship of the various parties which could be said to be conclusive. What needs to be ascertained and identified is the fundamental basis for the institution of the action. That underlying basis must have an ineffaceable link to the marital relationship. The marital relationship must constitute the point of origin for the action in order to bring it under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Courts.
**** **** ****
Answering the reference
44. Accordingly, the present reference is answered as under:
(a) Whether a suit for possession/injunction filed by the in-laws of the defendant or either of them, claiming themselves or either of them to be the exclusive owner of the property of which the possession is sought or with respect to which injunction is prayed for from or against the defendant daughter-in-law, is to be tried exclusively by the Family Court established under the Act, and the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred?
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 21/05/2026 at 21:15:36 Answer to question (a):
Each of the categories under Section 7(1)(a) of the Act 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 a foundational fact so as to lay a claim. Such relationship is not at the 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.
(b) Whether the impleadment or non-impleadment of the husband or the defendant son of the plaintiff has an effect on the maintainability of such a suit before a civil court?
Answer to question (b):
In light of our answer to question (a), the answer to this question would necessarily have to be in the negative. The mere impleadment or non-impleadment of the husband or the defendant son of the plaintiff would not be determinative of the question relating to the jurisdiction of the Family Court. The joinder or non-joinder of parties would have to be considered in light of the plethora of case law which already exists on that issue. Ultimately and irrespective of whether a husband is joined or not, the jurisdiction of the Family Court would have to ascertained based 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 21/05/2026 at 21:15:36 on the cause of action and whether that is founded on the marital relationship or has a mere casual or incidental connection to the cause.
45. We find ourselves unable to either subscribe or concur with the view expressed in Avneet Kaur case for if the view as expressed in Avneet Kaur case were to be accepted, it would clearly amount to an incorrect interpretation and understanding of the subject provision and the expression "circumstances arising out of marital relationship". The said decision, in our considered opinion, lays out the contours of that expression too broadly and fails to accord due consideration to the facet of "cause of action", which is of seminal importance. Thus, the said judgment stands overruled. We find ourselves in agreement with the views expressed in Manita Khurana case and Meena Kapoor case."
(emphasis supplied)
10. As noted hereinbefore, the subject suit was returned to be presented before the learned Family Court vide order dated 20.10.2022, which reads as under: -
" Matter is listed for consideration.
Ld. Counsel for plaintiff submits that in light of the judgment of Hon 'ble Delhi High Court in Avneet Kaur Vs. Sadhu Singh and Anr. CMM 69/2020 and CM appeal 2707/2020, plaint may be returned for filing before the proper court. Considering the submission regarding the subject matter jurisdiction of this court to try the present suit in light of the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Avneet Kaur Vs. Sadhu Singh and Anr.(supra), the plaint is required to be returned to the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC so that the plaintiff can file the present suit before proper court having the subject matter jurisdiction.
Ahlmad is directed to return the complete case file with due endorsement upon filing of certified copies of the documents by plaintiff, as per rules. Let court fee be returned, as per rules.
Thereafter, let file be consigned to record room after due compliance."
11. In view of the aforesaid, the contention of the learned counsel for the 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 21/05/2026 at 21:15:36 respondent No.1 that the proceedings before the learned Family Court are non est and have to be undertaken afresh is not tenable as the subject suit after being initially instituted before learned Civil Judge, South, Saket, was returned to the learned Family Court in view of judgment passed by learned Coordinate Bench of this Court in Avneet Kaur v. Sadhu Singh & Anr., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4815, which has now been expressly overruled by the learned Division Bench of this Court in Geeta Anand (supra). In these circumstances, the petitioner cannot be asked again to pursue a fresh suit all over again before learned Civil Court.
12. It is noted that during the course of the proceedings, husband of the petitioner (initial plaintiff No.1) has since passed away and the present petition has been filed by plaintiff No.2. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has raised objection with respect to the property being devolved upon legal heirs of the husband of the petitioner upon his demise. It is pertinent to note that an application has been preferred in the subject suit for bringing on record the legal heirs of the husband of the petitioner, and said application can be adjudicated by learned Civil Court (Transferee Court) during the course of proceedings in the subject suit.
13. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that the latter has no objection, in case the present petition is allowed and the subject suit is transferred for adjudication before the Court of competent jurisdiction in South District, Saket Courts.
14. The subject suit is at the stage of cross-examination of the plaintiff witnesses (petitioner herein) and if at such stage, the plaint is again returned under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC, and the trial will have to be commenced de-novo then, same would unnecessarily delay the outcome of the subject suit.
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 21/05/2026 at 21:15:36 Thus, it will be expedient in the interest of justice that the subject suit is transferred to the civil Court of competent jurisdiction for further proceedings in accordance with law.
15. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of with direction that the subject suit, CS No. 32/2022, pending before the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, South District, New Delhi, be transferred to the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, South District, Saket, who shall assign the same to the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for further proceedings in accordance with law. The subject suit shall be tried from the stage it is being transferred. The parties are directed to appear before the concerned Transferee Court accordingly. Let the records of the said suit be transferred to the concerned Court within a period of 10 days.
16. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
17. Copy of this order be sent to the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, South District, Saket Courts, and learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, South District, Saket Courts, for necessary information and compliance.
18. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court, forthwith.
AMIT SHARMA, J MAY 19, 2026/bsr/ns 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 21/05/2026 at 21:15:36