Property Disputes Between Spouses Fall Under Family Court's Exclusive Jurisdiction: Telangana High Court

1. Background and Context

The Telangana High Court's Division Bench, comprising Justice P. Naveen Rao and Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka, was called upon to resolve a significant jurisdictional question in Bhojraj Srinivas Vs Bhojraj Divya: can a regular Civil Court entertain a property dispute between a husband and wife once a Family Court has been constituted for that territorial area? The answer, as the Bench firmly held, is no — and the correct procedural consequence in such cases is rejection of the plaint, not its return to be filed elsewhere.

2. Facts of the Case

The appellant, a dentist by profession, had married the respondent in 2007. He claimed that during the course of their marriage, both spouses jointly contributed funds towards the acquisition of two immovable properties, though both were registered exclusively in the respondent's name.

The first property — referred to as Schedule A — was a residential plot bearing No. 140 in Survey Nos. 74, 100/1, 100/2, 100/3, 102 and 103, admeasuring 251.11 square yards, situated at Durgamatha House Building Co-operative Society Limited, Gunrock, Trimulgherry village, Secunderabad Cantonment. This was purchased under a sale deed dated 02.09.2015 for a total sale consideration of ₹37,66,650. The appellant further stated that he had secured building permission from the Secunderabad Cantonment Board on 20.11.2017 and bore the entire cost of constructing a house on this property, amounting to ₹1,73,47,484.

The second property — Schedule B — was a commercial office space bearing No. 918, with Municipal No. 6-3-1192/1/1/1/9, in Block III of the White House building at Begumpet, Hyderabad, admeasuring 1340.41 square feet and inclusive of two car parkings. The appellant claimed this was jointly purchased for a total sale consideration of ₹1,04,95,700.

According to the appellant, the respondent had registered both properties in her name without his knowledge or consent. In 2021, she allegedly left the matrimonial home along with their children and subsequently began asserting sole ownership over both Schedule A and Schedule B properties, threatening to evict the appellant from the residential property.

3. Reliefs Sought and Proceedings Before the Civil Court

On the basis of these allegations, the appellant instituted O.S. No. 7 of 2022 before the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad. The reliefs sought were declarations that the appellant was the beneficial owner of both properties — specifically, that he held a 70% share in Schedule A and a 52% share in Schedule B.

In response, the respondent filed I.A. No. 1093 of 2022 under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the dispute between the parties, being spouses, exclusively fell within the domain of the Family Court constituted under the Family Courts Act, 1984, and that the Civil Court was therefore barred from entertaining the suit. The trial court accepted this contention and rejected the plaint, prompting the appellant to prefer City Civil Court Appeal No. 120 of 2022 before the Telangana High Court.

4. Arguments Advanced

(i) Appellant's Contentions

Senior counsel for the appellant advanced a two-pronged argument. First, he submitted that the suit was maintainable before the Civil Court because the appellant was essentially asserting a claim as a co-owner who had jointly invested in the properties — the essential gravamen being fraud, namely that the respondent had caused both properties to be registered in her name without the appellant's knowledge. Framed in that manner, he argued, the dispute was not a purely matrimonial property matter but rather a civil claim arising from co-ownership.

Second, and in the alternative, counsel argued that even if the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction by virtue of Section 7 and Section 8 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the appropriate remedy was to return the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, with liberty to present it before the competent Family Court — not to reject it outright under Order VII Rule 11(d). The concern was practical: if the plaint were rejected rather than returned, a fresh suit before the Family Court might face a limitation bar, causing irreparable prejudice to the appellant.