1. The jurisdiction of the Family Court, Hyderabad, in entertaining O.P.No.387 of 2005 under Section 7(1) Explanation (c) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is under challenge.

2. O.P.No.387 of 2005 was filed by the first respondent herein against her husband, the second respondent herein, and her sisters-in-law, the petitioners herein, seeking a declaration that she was the joint owner of the petition schedule property along with her husband and to consequently declare the sale deed bearing document No.1193 of 1998 dated 15.05.1998 as invalid and not binding on her. By the said sale deed, the second respondent sold the petition schedule property, being the house bearing M.No.10-3-199, Humayunnagar, Hyderabad, to his three sisters, the petitioners herein. It was the case of the first respondent before the Family Court that she had contributed a half share towards the construction of the petition schedule house and was therefore entitled to be declared as joint owner along with her husband. She further alleged that the sale made by her husband in favour of his sisters was motivated by malice only to deprive her of her share and was therefore not binding on her.

3. While so, the petitioners herein filed I.A.No.796 of 2005 in O.P.No.387 of 2005 under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking rejection of the O.P. in limine. The Family Court by its order dated 24.04.2006 dismissed the I.A. holding that it had jurisdiction to entertain the O.P. as per Section 7(1) Explanation (c) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short, ‘the Act of 1984’) as the O.P. was filed in respect of the house property of the husband and his sisters had been impleaded as they purchased the house. Aggrieved by the dismissal of their application, the sisters filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

4. Though various grounds were urged in the application filed under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking rejection of the O.P., the Family Court only examined the aspect of its jurisdiction under the subject provision.

Section 7 of the Act of 1984 to the extent it is relevant reads as under:

“7. Jurisdiction

(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a Family Court shall,––

(a) have and exercise all the jurisdiction exercisable by any district court or any subordinate civil court under any law for the time being in force in respect of suits and proceedings of the nature referred to in the explanation; and

(b) be deemed, for the purposes of exercising such jurisdiction under such law, to be a district court or, as the case may be, such subordinate civil court for the area to which the jurisdiction of the Family Court extends.

Explanation: The suits and proceedings referred to in this sub-section are suits and proceedings of the following nature, namely, ––

(a) …

(b) …

(c) a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage with respect to the property of the parties or of either of them;”

(d) …

(e) …

(f) …

(g) …

Section 8 of the Act of 1984 makes it clear that after the establishment of the Family Court in an area, the district court/ subordinate court in relation to such area would cease to have or exercise jurisdiction in respect of any suit or proceeding of the nature referred to in the explanation to Section 7(1).

The issue for consideration is whether O.P.No.387 of 2005, wherein the wife challenges the alienation of the house property made by the husband in favour of his sisters long prior to its institution can be said to fall within the ambit of Explanation (c) to Section 7 (1) of the Act of 1984.

As pointed out by a Division Bench of this Court in R.DURGA PRASAD v. UNION OF INDIA (1998 (1) ALT 652 (DB)), while interpreting the statute, the specific provisions of the statute are to be read and understood and have to be interpreted in consistence with the language and intention of the said legal provisions. If the language and intention of the legal provisions are clear and unambiguous, then, there is no