In a pivotal judgment, the Madras High Court has definitively stated that only Family Courts are empowered to adjudicate property disagreements between married individuals. This means neither district courts nor any other subordinate civil courts can hear cases related to properties owned either jointly or separately by a husband and wife.
Justice P.B. Balaji issued this clear directive while overseeing a civil revision petition filed by a woman. She had challenged a decision made on April 30, 2025, by the Tiruvallur Principal District Court, which had refused to accept a lawsuit from her husband concerning a property dispute they shared.
The judge fully endorsed the argument put forth by the woman’s counsel, S.P. Arthi. Arthi cited an explanation within Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act of 1984, which explicitly allows for a suit or proceeding between spouses, involving their joint property or assets belonging to either of them, to be initiated within a Family Court.
Furthermore, Section 8 of the same Act unequivocally restricts other courts. It mandates that no district court or any subordinate civil court, as outlined in Section 7(1), can exercise jurisdiction over any case or proceeding described in the aforementioned legal explanation.
Consequently, Justice Balaji concluded that only a Family Court possesses the sole authority to address property disputes between married couples. He therefore overturned the earlier order from the Thanjavur principal district court, which had wrongly refused to return the complaint filed by the husband in this particular instance.
Emphasizing that the lawsuit must be presented before a Family Court, Justice Balaji dismissed the husband’s counsel’s contention that the Family Court was unsuitable because the Inspector General of Registration was also named as a defendant.
“I cannot accept this argument from the learned counsel representing the first respondent (husband),” Justice Balaji stated. He elaborated that “simply by including the Inspector General of Registration and requesting a permanent injunction against this statutory body to prevent any property registrations related to the lawsuit will not diminish the exclusive jurisdiction entrusted to the Family Court.”
Justice Balaji also rejected the additional argument that the petitioner should have filed an appeal instead of a revision petition against the district judge’s refusal to return the original complaint. Citing relevant legal precedents, the judge affirmed, “I maintain that this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution is perfectly admissible before this court.”