C.Raja vs M.Sridevi @ Kalpana on 23 January, 2024
“(8) The question therefore before us is whether
the view expressed by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice
S.NAGAMUTHU in the case of B.Gajendran Vs.
Adhilakshmi in CRP.[PD].No.142/2013 dated
03.04.2013 has to be reconsidered for the reason given
3/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.926 of 2016
by Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.R.SHIVAKUMAR, in his
dissenting note in this revision petition. Having regard
to the specific reference, we reframe the question to be
answered by us as follows: ''Whether the Family Court
has inherent jurisdiction under Section 7 of the Family
Courts Act to entertain a suit by wife against husband
for perpetual injunction restraining the husband from
alienating residential property of husband while wife
and husband were living together for some time and a
revision petition maintainable under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India to strike of the plaint on the
ground that the Family Court has no jurisdiction to
entertain a suit?”
“(23) The present suit is not a proceeding falls
under Section 26 of D.V.Act. The suit is not for
maintenance. The prayer for injunction is not
consequential to any declaration or a prayer for
maintenance. The wife admits that the property was
purchased by the petitioner and she does not claim any
proprietory right. The petitioner herein admits that the
respondent is not in possession or residing in the suit
property at present. Admittedly, the respondent wife
has filed a petition alleging domestic violence and no
other relief under Sections 18 to 21 is sought for. The
4/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.926 of 2016
judgment of Delhi High Court deals with a situation
where the parents-in-law of wife filed the suit for
injunction restraining the daughter-in-law from
entering/interfering with their possession and Court
has only considered the scope of expression ''arising
out of''. All the other judgments referred to and relied
upon by Mr.Bharath Kumar, cannot be taken as
precedents for the proposition that the Family Court
has inherent jurisdiction to entertain a suit where the
wife seeks perpetual injunction against her husband
restraining him from alienating or disposing off the
shared household as contemplated under Section 19 of
DV Act, 2005, which can be passed in an application
under Section 12[1] of DV Act, 2005, by a Magistrate
on being satisfied that domestic violence has taken
place. The protection order cannot b e passed by a
Family Court where proceedings are pending before
Metropolitan Magistrate alleging domestic violence.