Bombay High Court
SUBHASH CHANDULAL TALERAversusSONA SUBHASH TALERA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The Family Court has jurisdiction under Section 7(c) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 to entertain the petition, and the order rejecting it for lack of jurisdiction is set aside.
Summary
The husband, Subhash Chandulal Talera, filed a petition in the Family Court seeking a declaration that shares and immovable property held in his wife Sona Subhash Talera's name were benami and that he was the absolute owner, along with a direction to cancel a power of attorney and an injunction restraining the wife from disposing of the property. The Family Court, relying on an objection raised by its Registry, dismissed the petition on the ground of lack of maintainability. The appellant appealed, arguing that under Section 7(c) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 the Court has jurisdiction over suits between spouses concerning property. The High Court examined the statutory provision and held that the subject matter clearly falls within the Family Court's jurisdiction. Consequently, the High Court quashed the impugned order and allowed the appeal, directing that the petition should not have been rejected for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues considered
- Whether the Family Court has jurisdiction to entertain a petition concerning movable and immovable property between spouses under the Family Courts Act, 1984.
- Whether the objection raised by the Registry regarding maintainability of the petition is valid.
- Whether the reliefs sought (declaration of benami shares, transfer of ownership, cancellation of power of attorney, and injunction) fall within the Family Court's jurisdiction.
Legislation cited
- Family Courts Act, 1984 — s. 7
Subjects
- Family Court jurisdiction
- Section 7 Family Courts Act
- matrimonial property
- benami shares
- declaration
- injunction
- power of attorney
- maintainability
Judgment
11-FCA-131-2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 131 OF 2025
Subhash Chandulal Talera ...Appellant
Versus
Sona Subhash Talera ...Respondent
****
SNEHA Mr. Abhijeet Sarwale i/b Vaibhav Thorave for the Appellant.
NITIN
CHAVAN ****
Digitally signed by
SNEHA NITIN
CHAVAN
Date: 2026.02.11
19:51:57 +0530
CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE &
MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : 6th FEBRUARY, 2026
P.C. :
1. The Petition raises a challenge to the order passed by the Family
Court on 02.08.2025, upholding the objection raised by the Registry of
the Family Court, as regards the maintainability of the proposed petition
filed by the husband seeking certain declaration in regard to certain
shares and immovable property.
The Family Court’s record indicates that the issue in the proposed
petition is movable and immovable property and it is also not disputed
that the marital ties between parties are subsistent. However, in the
Court's record that the question of equitable relief in the form of a
declaration will come if there is no other alternative remedy available.
2. On perusal of the impugned order, we fail to find any logic and
justifiability in the impugned order, as the Family Courts Act, 1984, in
Chapter III under Section 7 has set out the jurisdiction of the Family
Court and explanation appended thereto has enlisted the suits and
proceedings referred to in the sub-section, are the suits and proceedings
Sneha Chavan 1
11-FCA-131-2025.doc
of the nature prescribed and this includes (c) a suit or proceeding
between the parties to a marriage with respect to the property of the
parties or of either of them.
3. On perusal of the pleadings, in the Petition filed before the Family
Court, it is the case of the husband that he brought shares for the wife
in her name and he had added her name in various businesses by
conferring shares with an understanding that she would hold as
nominee and she will not have any right, title or interest therein. Even,
it is alleged that few properties are also purchased in her name and
thereafter, they were estranged and the husband claims his stake in the
said shares as the petition filed by him seek a declaration that the
shares held by the wife in the company are benami and the Petitioner
be declared as absolute owner of the shares and he being the owner of
the share, the shares can be transferred in his name from that of the
wife. Similarly, a direction is also sought that the power of attorney
executed by the wife in favour of the son be cancelled.
4. A restraint order is sought in form of an injunction directing the
Respondent/wife not to sell, create or dispose of any right in the
property by use of alleged power of attorney and create any
encumbrance/obstruction to the right which the petitioner claims, as
according to him, her name was put only for name sake and the actual
investment is by him.
5. Perusal of the petition filed before the Family Court and the
reliefs sought therein according to us, the subject matter would clearly
fall within the jurisdiction of the Family Court and we find the
impugned order is not sustainable.
Hence, we allow the appeal by quashing and setting aside the
impugned order dated 02.08.2025. We may record that it is different
Sneha Chavan 2
11-FCA-131-2025.doc
thing that the Family Court determine the entitlement of petitioner to
claim the said relief. But, the petition could not have been rejected on
the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid manner.
(MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.)
Sneha Chavan 3
Checking your session…