1 CGHC010166222026 2026:CGHC:41843-DB AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA(MAT) No. 154 of 2026 Ruchi Pasari D/o Pawan Kumar Gupta Aged About 42 Years Correspondence Address M - 20, Sector - 1, Avanti Vihar, Raipur 492001 Chhattisgarh Mobile 9893210315 ... Appellant versus Radhika Gupta Alias Renu Mittal D/o Rajendra Mittal Aged About 42 Years R/o B.W. 08, Vasundhara Kundla City, Behind Agrasen Bhawan, Ambikapur District Surguja 497001 Chhattisgarh (Mobile 9752037827) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Rahul Gupta, Pleader For Respondent : Mr. D.K. Gwalre, Advocate Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge & Hon’ble Smt Sushma Sawant, Judge Order on Board 25.09.2026 Per Parth Prateem Sahu, J. 1) This first appeal (matrimonial) is filed by the appellant under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, questioning the legality and sustainability of the impugned order dated 11.03.2026 (Annexure P-1) ALFIZA BAIG Digitally signed by ALFIZA BAIG Date: 2026.09.30 15:37:15 +0530 2 passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, in Application Filing No. DJ ADJ/331/2026 whereby the learned Family Court has refused to register the suit/application on the ground that the said suit/application is not maintainable in Family Court, observing that there is no marital relationship between the plaintiff and defendant/applicant and non-applicant. 2) Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that the plaintiff/appellant has filed a suit/application against the defendant/respondent with the subject “the suit for return of Stree Dhan”. In the application it is specifically pleaded that the applicant and the non-applicant is having a relationship of sister-in-law (Nand) and Bhabi (wife of the brother of plaintiff). It was also pleaded that during the period from 2014 to 2016, in different parts a total sum of Rs. 47,00,000/-(Fourty Seven Lakhs Only) has been given to non-applicant through banking transaction. The said amount is self earned and is part of Stree Dhan. It is also mentioned that the said amount was given to non-applicant under trust/loan. However, on demand non-applicant returned Rs. 26,00,010/- (Twenty Six Lakhs Ten Rupees Only) but the remaining part of the total amount has not been paid i.e. Rs. 20,99,990/-(Twenty Lakhs Ninety Nine Thousand Ninety Rupees Only). In the relief applicant/appellant has sought for the order/direction to the defendant/respondent for refund of Rs. 20,99,990/- (Twenty Lakhs Ninety Nine Thousand Ninety Only) with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of transaction until collection and further sought for a compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Twenty Lakhs Only) for mental agony and loss of reputation caused due to false and harassing criminal complaints. 3) At the time of registration of the application/suit, learned Family Court 3 upon considering the pleadings made by appellant/plaintiff as also after hearing the respective parties came to the conclusion that the application seeking the said relief is not arising out of marital relationship between the parties, refused to register the case stating it to be not maintainable. 4) Pleader on behalf of the appellant would submits that learned Family Court erred in refusing to register an application stating it to be non- maintainable. He submits that the appellant being the sister-in-law of the respondent is falling within the family, will include within marital relationship and therefore, the application submitted before the Family Court by appellant is maintainable under Section 7(1) Explanation-(d). He further submits that case of appellant is covered with the decision of High Court of Kerala in case of Leby Isaac V. Leena reported in AIR 2005 Ker 285 and the decision of Delhi High Court in case of Avneet Kaur v. Sadhu Singh and Anr. Reported in 2022:DHC:2453. 5) Learned counsel for the respondent would oppose the submission made by pleader on behalf of the appellant and would submit that learned Family Court has rightly refused to register the application submitted by appellant as it is not arising out of marital relationship but it is a case between two family members only, if the relationship as pleaded by the appellant is accepted. He submits that it is purely a money suit, filed by one family member against another, and therefore, the appellant is having a remedy under Civil law before the Civil Court. He next submits that the provision under Section 7(1) Explanation-(d) clearly mentions the word “marital relationship” and the provision does not provide for any matrimonial relationship. There is a difference between matrimonial relationship and marital relationship. In support of 4 his submission he relied upon the decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of Vivek Singh Vs. Yogendra Singh Thakur reported in AIR 2021 Chhattisgarh 129 and the decision in case of Mrs. Chellam and Ors. Vs. N. Srinivasan and Ors reported in (2022) 2 MLJ 45. 6) We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the documents enclosed along with this memo of appeal. 7) Before proceeding further, we find it appropriate to extract below Section 7 of Family Courts Act, 1984 for ready reference:- “7.Jurisdiction.-(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a Family Court shall- (a) have and exercise all the jurisdiction exercisable by any district court or any subordinate civil court under any law for the time being in force in respect of suits and proceedings of the nature referred to in the explanation; and (b) be deemed, for the purposes of exercising such jurisdiction under such law, to be a district court or, as the case may be, such subordinate civil court for the area to which the jurisdiction of the Family Court extends. Explanation.- The suits and proceedings referred to in this sub-section are suits and proceedings of the following nature, namely:- (a) a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage for a decree of nullity of marriage (declaring the marriage to be null and void or, as the case may be, annulling the marriage) or restitution of conjugal rights or judicial separation or dissolution of marriage; (b) a suit or proceeding for a declaration as to the validity of a marriage or as to the matrimonial status of any person; (c) a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage with respect to the property of the parties or 5 of either of them; (d) a suit or proceeding for an order or injunction in circumstances arising out of a marital relationship; (e) a suit or proceeding for a declaration as to the legitimacy of any person; (f) a suit or proceeding for maintenance; (g) a suit or proceeding in relation to the guardianship of the person or the custody of, or access to, any minor. (2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a Family Court shall also have and exercise- (a) the jurisdiction exercisable by a Magistrate of the First Class under Chapter IX (relating to order for maintenance of wife, children and parents) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974); and (b) such other jurisdiction as may be conferred on it by any other enactment.” 8) Perusal of the explanation of Section 7(1) would clearly show that Clause ‘a’ deals with the proceedings for obtaining the nullity of decree of marriage, clause ‘b’ deals with the declaration of validity of marriage, clause ‘c’ talks of the proceedings between the parties to the marriage with respect to the property, clause ‘d’ which is pressed upon deals with the proceedings for an order in circumstances arising out of marital relationship, clause ‘e’ deals with declaration as to the legitimacy of any person, clause ‘f’ talks of proceedings of maintenance and clause ‘g’ talks of proceedings to the guardianship of the person or the custody of, or access to, any minor. 9) The provision which is pressed upon by pleader is Section 7(1) Explanation-(d). The key word used in the aforesaid referred provision is “an order or injunction in circumstances arising out of a marital relationship”. 6 10) The word Marital Relationship is not defined under the Family Court’s Act, 1984. Relationship of persons involving in the family is defined as domestic relationship under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The relationship between the family is defined under the domestic violence is wider than the term marital relationship used in the Act of 1984. The definition of the marital relationship in law refers to the legal rights/obligations and interaction between spouses in other words is the relationship legal, social or culturally recognized and interaction between the husband and wife. 11) In the case at hand, according to the pleadings made in the complaint the appellant and the respondent are relatives as the appellant is sister -in-law of respondent. The relationship between the two in view of the definition in general terms, as discussed above, will not fall within the words marital relationship as mentioned under Section 7(1) Explanation-(d). 12) Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of K. A. Abdul Jaleel v. T.A. Shahida reported in (2003) 4 SCC 166 has considered the jurisdiction of Family Court under Section 7(1) Explanation -(c) and while considering the said fact that when the suit has been filed by one of the divorced spouse, on the objection raised by other side with regard to the maintainability of the suit has observed as under:- “8. Mr. Haris Beeram, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, would submit that having regard to the provisions continaed in Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the Family Court had not jurisdiction to decide a dispute as regards properties claimed by a divorced wife. The learned counsel would urge that the jurisdiction exercisable by any Family Court being between the parties to a marriage which would mean 7 parties to a subsisting marriage. In support of the said contention strong reliance has been placed on a judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Amjum Hasan Siddiqui vs. Salma B.1 and Ponnavolu Sasidar v. Sub-Registrar, Hayatnagar2. 9. Mr. T.L. V. Iyer, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, would contend that the matter is covered by an inter partes judgment passed by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Abdul Jaleel v. Sahida3. As the appellant herein did not question the correctness of the said judgment, he cannot be permitted to turn around and now challenge the jurisdiction of the Family Court.” 13) Division Bench of this Court in case of Vivek Singh (supra) while considering the order rejecting the objection raised by the non- applicant therein with regard to the jurisdiction of the Family Court to deal with the application, wherein father of deceased lady Pratima Singh has filed an application claiming return of the property gifted to the deceased daughter at the time of marriage and relying upon the decision of K. A. Abdul Jaleel (supra) has observed that in the decision of Division Bench of Kerala High Court in case of Shymladevi v. Sarala Devi and Ors. Reported in 2009 SCC Online Ker 508: AIR 2009 Ker 138 have missed the observation made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of K. A. Abdul Jaleel (supra) and has held as under:- “20. The judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Syamaladevi (supra) holding a similar suit, like in the present case, maintainable before the family Court, seems to have missed the observation made by the Supreme Court in K.A. Abdul Jaleel (supra) in para 11 clearly observing that the statement of objects and reasons would clearly go to show that the jurisdiction of the Family Court extends, inter alia, in relation to properties of spouses or of either of them which would 8 clearly mean that the properties claimed by the parties thereto as a spouse of other. 21. Despite the fact that the Supreme Court was considering the issue arising out of a suit, which was preferred by one of the divorced spouse, it is settled that even the obiter of the Supreme Court is binding on the High Court. The observation that “the properties of spouses or of either of them which would clearly mean that the properties claimed by the parties thereto as a spouse of other.” Therefore, it is difficult to follow the decision rendered by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Syamaladevi (supra). 22. In view of the above, the appeal succeeds. The suit preferred by the respondent herein, who is the father of deceased wife of the appellant, before the family Court is held not maintainable. The impugned judgment and decree is set aside for want of jurisdiction of the family Court reserving liberty in favour of the respondent to maintain the suit before the jurisdictional Civil Court.” 14) In case of Geeta Anand v. Tanya Arjun reported in (2023) SCC Online Del 3535 while answering the reference made to it based on the conflicting decision in case of Manita Khurana v. Indira Khurana reported in MANU/DE/0198/2010 and Meena Kapoor v. Ayushi Rawal reported in MANU/DE/1017/2020 on the one hand and Avneet Kaur v. Sadhu Singh reported in MANU/DE/2888/2022:2022:DHC:2453 on the other hand, has answered the references holding that the if view expressed in Avneet Kaur (supra) is 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 lays out the contours of the expression too broadly and fails to accord due consideration to the facet of ‘cause 9 of action’, which is of seminal importance. Thus, the said judgment stands overruled. Division Bench of Delhi High Court in para no. 42 has observed thus:- “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 analyzing 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 martial relationship would clearly take the matter outside the purview of the Family Court. What needs to be emphasized 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.” 10 15) In the case at hand also, though their may be relationship of the parties, the appellant being sister-in-law of the respondent, but that relationship if considered in the light of the object of the provisions of Section 7(1) Explanation appended to clause (d) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, it would not come within the purview of the ‘marital relationship’. 16) For the forgoing discussion, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Family Court. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is devoid of substance and, therefore, it is dismissed at admission stage. No order as to cost(s). Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) (Sushma Sawant) Alfiza Judge Judge