- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5616-DB RFA No. 100358 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100358 OF 2020 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: ABDUL HAMEED S/O. ABDUL JABBAR KAHAN SAVANUR AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE, R/O: H.NO.39, SUVIDHA COLONY, (C.T.S. NO.458/B/39, WARD EXTENSION), KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. ASMA W/O. ABDUL HAMEED SAVANUR AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: SENIOR BANK MANAGER, R/O. SYNDICATE BANK, NGV, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. H.V.VASANTHALAKSHMI AND SRI. B.R.DHANANJAIAH, ADVOCATES) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC. 96 OF C.P.C., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.09.2019 PASSED IN O.S. NO.318/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, HUBBALLI, DISMISSING THE SUIT FILED FOR DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA Date: 2025.04.15 11:55:30 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5616-DB RFA No. 100358 of 2020 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) In the captioned appeal, the appellant has questioned the judgment and decree rendered by the trial Court in O.S.No.318/2014. In the said suit, the appellant herein who is the plaintiff sought a declaration to declare the sale transaction dated 16.04.1994 relating to suit plot relating to respondent/defendant who is the wife as a benami transaction and to declare that the respondent/defendant is the benamidar of the suit property holding that plaintiff is the real owner and for consequential relief of injunction. The said suit was contested by the defendant/wife and the Court has dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff/husband on merits. 2. The appellant/plaintiff has filed an application in I.A.No.1/2025 seeking leave of the Court to withdraw the suit that was originally filed before the regular Civil Court and to institute a fresh suit on the same cause of action before the jurisdictional Family Court. The primary - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5616-DB RFA No. 100358 of 2020 contention raised by the appellant/plaintiff is that the dispute between the husband and wife pertains to a property that was purchased in the name of the wife, and therefore, the Civil Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. The appellant/plaintiff has urged that the appropriate forum to decide such disputes is the Family Court, as per the provisions of the Family Courts Act, 1984. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff has specifically drawn the attention of this Court to Section 7(1)(c) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. This provision stipulates that the Family Court has jurisdiction over disputes between spouses relating to property of either or both parties. Citing this statutory provision, the learned counsel contended that the suit filed before the regular Civil Court was not maintainable from the outset. It was further argued that the husband, who is the appellant/plaintiff in this case, had inadvertently instituted the suit before the wrong forum and that the defect in jurisdiction should not bar him from pursuing his legal rights before the proper forum, i.e., the Family Court. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5616-DB RFA No. 100358 of 2020 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant has vehemently opposed the application. She has contended that the respondent/wife has been subjected to continuous harassment at the hands of the appellant/husband, who is a practicing Advocate. She has highlighted that the suit has been lingering since 2014, compelling the wife to undergo severe mental, emotional, and financial distress due to the prolonged litigation. The learned counsel further emphasized that the respondent/wife, lacking adequate financial resources, has been forced to contest the matter before multiple judicial forums, including the trial Court and the appellate Court, for an extended period of time. The appeal itself has been pending for nearly five years, adding to her hardship. It was argued that permitting the appellant/plaintiff to withdraw the suit and file a fresh suit on the same cause of action before the Family Court would be unjust and would further perpetuate the harassment faced by the respondent/wife. 5. This Court, having taken note of the unfair conduct of the appellant/plaintiff, observed that after suffering an - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5616-DB RFA No. 100358 of 2020 adverse decree of dismissal in the suit before the Civil Court, he now seeks to take advantage of the provisions under the Family Courts Act to initiate fresh proceedings. Recognizing the undue hardship caused to the respondent/wife and in an effort to mitigate her financial burden, this Court, in its earlier order, had directed the appellant/plaintiff to deposit a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards the litigation costs incurred by the respondent/wife. This directive was issued with the intent to ensure that, if a fresh suit were to be filed before the Family Court, the respondent/wife would not be left entirely uncompensated for the financial strain already borne in contesting the earlier litigation. 6. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, the appellant/plaintiff has complied with the order and has deposited the sum of Rs.40,000/- before this Court. In light of this compliance, we find it appropriate to order the release of this amount in favor of the respondent/wife, upon proper verification of her identity. This financial relief, while not entirely offsetting the legal expenses incurred by the respondent/wife, will serve to alleviate some of the financial - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5616-DB RFA No. 100358 of 2020 burden that has been placed upon her due to the prolonged litigation. 7. On the substantive legal issue, this Court has examined the question of whether the suit originally instituted before the regular Civil Court was maintainable. This issue has already been conclusively settled by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bashirahmed S/o Imamsab Tahsildar vs. Smt. Surayya D/o Usmansab Benni1. In that decision, the Division Bench categorically held that disputes between husband and wife concerning property fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Family Court and that regular Civil Courts inherently lack the jurisdiction to entertain such matters. 8. Applying the ratio laid down by the Division Bench, we are of the considered view that the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff before the Civil Court was not maintainable as it pertained to a property dispute between spouses. The nature of the lis in the present case falls squarely within the ambit of Section 7(1)(c) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, 1 MFA No.101005/2015 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5616-DB RFA No. 100358 of 2020 thereby ousting the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Consequently, the appropriate forum for adjudication of such disputes is the Family Court, and any further proceedings in the Civil Court would be without legal foundation. 9. In view of the aforesaid observations, we find merit in the application filed by the appellant/plaintiff in I.A.No.1/2025. Accordingly, the application is allowed, and the appellant/plaintiff is permitted to withdraw the suit. Liberty is granted to the appellant/plaintiff to institute a fresh suit on the same cause of action before the jurisdictional Family Court. Furthermore, the Registry is directed to forthwith release the sum of Rs.40,000/- deposited by the appellant/plaintiff in favor of the respondent/wife upon verification of proper identification. With this, the matter is disposed of. 10. For the foregoing reasons and in the light of the exclusion provided under sub-section (1)(c) of Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, I.A I.A.No.1/2025 seeking leave of the Court to withdraw the suit that was originally filed - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5616-DB RFA No. 100358 of 2020 before the regular Civil Court and to institute a fresh suit on the same cause of action before the jurisdictional Family Court is allowed. Liberty is reserved to file fresh suit. The interim order granted by this Court shall be in force for a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of order copy. Appeal stands disposed off. ** Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE CA Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7 ** Consequently, the judgment and decree dated 27.09.2019 rendered in O.S. No.318/2014 on the file of the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi is hereby set aside. The plaint is ordered to be returned to be presented before the proper forum. * & ** Corrected and inserted vide Court order dated 08.04.2025 Sd/- (SSMJ) * eight