The Punjab and Haryana High Court has affirmed that while interim injunctions in matrimonial property disputes are legally permissible, their legitimacy hinges on the prompt adjudication of the underlying application. The Court emphasized that delay in deciding such applications undermines the very purpose of interim relief and exacerbates adversarial tensions between spouses.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Sumita Kulshreshtha, and the respondent, Milind Kulshreshtha, are married parties engaged in a contentious matrimonial dispute. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of marriage. A decree of divorce was granted by the Family Court, Delhi, on 12.03.2025. Subsequently, the respondent-husband instituted a civil suit (Civil Suit No. 79 of 2025) before the Family Court, Gurugram, seeking a declaration of his ownership and a permanent injunction over the suit property located at No. 14/3, Harmony Homes, Sector 57, Sushant Lok-III. He claimed that although the property was registered in the petitioner’s name, he was the actual purchaser and lawful owner.
Key Facts
- The petitioner-wife filed a written statement denying the respondent’s claim of ownership
- The respondent applied for an ad interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
- The Family Court, Gurugram, passed an order on 28.08.2025 restraining the petitioner from alienating, selling, or transferring the suit property
- The petitioner alleges that since the injunction order, the respondent has prevented her from entering or residing in the property
- The petitioner contends that the injunction was granted without adequate consideration of her rights and without a proper hearing
Procedural History
- 12.03.2025: Decree of divorce granted by Family Court, Delhi
- Date unspecified (prior to 28.08.2025): Civil Suit No. 79 of 2025 filed by respondent-husband in Family Court, Gurugram
- 28.08.2025: Family Court, Gurugram, granted ad interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, restraining petitioner from alienating the suit property
- 02.04.2026: Revision petition filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the injunction order dated 28.08.2025, and requested that the Family Court be directed to dispose of the injunction application expeditiously. She also sought directions to ensure her right of access to the suit property.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an interim injunction granted under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC in a matrimonial property dispute can be sustained if the underlying application remains undetermined for an unreasonable period, thereby causing irreparable prejudice to one party.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the injunction order was passed ex parte and in haste, without adequate opportunity to present her case. He submitted that the order has effectively dispossessed the petitioner from the property, despite her being a co-owner under the marriage and registration records. He relied on the principle that injunctions are equitable remedies and must not be used as tools of oppression. He further contended that the Family Court’s failure to fix a definite date for hearing the application violates the mandate of fair procedure under Article 21 of the Constitution.
For the Respondent
The respondent did not file a written reply, and no counter-arguments were formally presented before the High Court. The Court noted the absence of any rebuttal from the respondent’s side.
The Court's Analysis
The Court acknowledged that the Family Court’s order granting interim injunction was not per se illegal. It observed that the respondent had made a prima facie case regarding ownership and that the property was the subject of a pending civil suit. The Court noted that the balance of convenience and irreparable injury were factors that could justify the grant of injunction.
"It is not unknown that after obtaining stay, parties make attempts to delay the proceedings. In the matter of the kind where husband and wife are at loggerheads, it would be always in the interest of Justice that an early decision is taken in the application for injunction."
The Court emphasized that while the injunction order itself was not set aside, its continued operation without a final determination would amount to a denial of justice. The Court held that the delay in adjudicating the injunction application would render the interim relief arbitrary and oppressive, particularly in a domestic context where emotional and physical access to the home are critical. The Court declined to interfere with the injunction but imposed a strict timeline to prevent abuse.
The Verdict
The revision petition was dismissed, and the injunction order dated 28.08.2025 was upheld. However, the Court directed the Family Court, Gurugram, to dispose of the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC on the date fixed, which is 13.05.2026, after hearing both parties and strictly in accordance with law. The Court clarified that nothing in its order should be construed as an opinion on the merits of the underlying suit. All pending applications stood disposed of.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Timely Disposal Is Non-Negotiable
- Practitioners must now insist on fixed hearing dates for injunction applications in matrimonial suits, and move for contempt if deadlines are missed
- Courts must record reasons for any adjournment beyond the stipulated date, or risk reversal on revision
- Delay in deciding injunctions in domestic disputes may be viewed as a violation of Article 21 rights to life and dignity
Injunctions Are Not Permanent Dispossession
- An interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC cannot be used to effectuate de facto possession without adjudication
- The burden shifts to the applicant to demonstrate urgency and necessity, and to ensure the matter is heard promptly
- Courts must balance the rights of both spouses, particularly where the property is jointly acquired or registered in one spouse’s name but funded by the other
Strategic Implications for Advocates
- File applications for early listing immediately after injunction is granted
- Seek directions from the High Court under Article 227 if the trial court fails to fix a date within 30 days
- Use this judgment to oppose prolonged injunctions in divorce-related property disputes where no final determination is pending
