Jurisdiction on multi-state properties

1. Yes, in my opinion, a Family Court located at any one of the District(s) in Gujarat has Jurisdiction to seize property matters of spouses who are in dispute over 'ownership' of several properties. Moreover when you have proof of all payments made to create fiduciary title over stated multi-state properties then all you need to challenge is proof of her money trail documents and in-turn rebute her metro fictions with your legit money trail documents facilitating you seeking their exclusive 'title'. The matter thus ends is my opinion. 

2. The Supreme Court has held that family courts are empowered to adjudicate upon any dispute relating to properties of either of the divorced husband or wife. Sometime in 2003 a three-Judge Bench, comprising the then Chief Justice V.N. Khare, Justice S.B. Sinha and Justice A.R. Lakshmanan, pointed out that the reason for enacting the Family Courts Act was to set up a court which would deal with disputes concerning the family by adopting an approach radically different from that adopted in ordinary civil proceedings. Further, the Bench said the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act would show that the jurisdiction of the family court extended in relation to properties of spouses or of either of them whether claimed during the subsistence of a marriage or otherwise.

3. Now ref. yourself Apex Court judgment in case of ref.: K.A. Abdul Jaleel Vs T.A. Shahida [AIR 2003 SC 2525] where above observation was written as tomb stone by Apex Court. The applicable Section of Law under Family Court Act, 1984 is S. 7 FCA, 1984 (The Act) whose object and reason is quite liberal and you need to search online or read by buying Law book on Family Court Act, 1984. Family Court Act is a special statutory legislation which is always interpreted quite liberally when simple question as 'ownership' to be decided and not meant for creating any "additional rights" where bar of S. 16 Civil Procedure Code gets applied as major obstructions.

4. I feel you are a bigger idiot over your hired advocate not to change him when there is conflict or seek outside consultation from any other  local advocate locally by meeting consultation fees for remedy available on asked query. 

PS:
Note for posterity an Advocate is never referred to as idiot by client(s); idiot are always clients. Reason I can give provided you want me to be kept engaged only for this discussion over many others here by other queriests.

[Last reply]

Jimmy,  your question is "Does the Family Court in Gujarat have jurisdiction to decide on the ownership of these flats or do additional proceedings have to be initiated by her or me in different Courts in Maharashtra and in England."  So you accept the jurisdiction of the Family Court in Gujarat over properties in Gujarat and your question is about properties in Maharashtra and England.  Very Good Question indeed.

The following judgments support your concern that the Family Court does NOT have jurisdiction over immoveable properties located outside its territorial jurisdiction.

• Bombay High Court (See https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1478827/ ).  
• Punjab-Haryana High Court https://indiankanoon.org/doc/83988990/
• Kerala High Court judgment at https://www.keralawyer.com/asp/detailedJudgement.asp?id=4721. 

The facts of the Supreme Court case in the judgement cited by TajobsIndia are not applicable to the facts of your case as  there is no issue there of the location of the properties outside the state in which the Family Court proceedings were ongoing. 

I know about this issue because I chose to represent myself and I was in a similar situation but my case was neither in Bombay nor Gujarat but the properties were in three states in India and a foreign country and the proceedings were in a Family Court. DISCLAIMER: I am not an advocate and hope that someone can shed a more authoritative light on this subject.   

Samirbhai, thank you. Your answer is clear, on-point, with similar facts and supported by precise judgements that resolve the legal issue of jurisdiction of the Family Court for dispute over "multi-state properties."  Thank you, thank you, thank you!