L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J - This application is filed with a prayer to review the order, dated 29.3.2012, passed by a Division Bench of this Court in FCA No.80 of 2011.

2. The brief facts, that gave rise to the filing of the application, are as under:

The marriage between the 1st petitioner and the 1st respondent took place on 1.1.2000, and the petitioners 2 and 3 were born out of their wedlock. The respondents 2 and 3 are the parents of the 1st respondent. The petitioners filed OP No.1551 of 2010 in the Family Court, Hyderabad, under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act (for short 'the Act') read with Section 26 of CPC, against the respondents, with a prayer to declare the documents in relation to two items of property, namely, a house in Road No.10, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, constructed in 680 square yards, and Acs.5.00 of land in Survey Nos.253 and 255 of Shadnagar Village, as sham and inoperative in law and to cancel them. Relief of injunction to restrain the respondents 1 to 3 from executing any documents, that would have the effect of conferring title on others in respect of the suit schedule properties was claimed. Direction was also sought against the 1st respondent requiring him to provide adequate security for the petitioners 2 and 3 to meet the anticipated reasonable expenditure.

3. The manner in which the 1st petitioner and the 1st respondent got acquainted with each other and the developments that have taken place thereafter are narrated in detail in the O.P. It was pleaded that the 1st respondent, who was the absolute owner of the property, has executed the documents in question. The various incidents that have taken place between the parties are also narrated. In the O.P., the petitioners filed IA No.993 of 2010, under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, with a prayer to restrain the respondents from transacting, alienating or encumbering the suit schedule properties. The petitioners also filed IA No.994 of 2010, under the same provision, with a prayer to restrain the respondents from inducting third parties into the possession of the properties. The trial Court passed orders of status quo on 24.11.2010.

4. After receiving notices in the I.As. and summons in the suit, the respondents 2 and 3 filed IA No.1068 of 2010, under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC, with a prayer to return the petition. The reason pleaded by them was that Section 7 of the Act can be invoked by a spouse only in respect of the properties held by either of the spouses, and since none of the suit schedule properties were owned by the 1st respondent, as on the date of filing of the O.P., it is not maintainable.

5. The petitioners opposed the I.A., by filing a counter. According to them, the properties were held by the 1st respondent, as on the date of his marriage with the 1st petitioner, and the very grievance in the suit is about the transactions that have taken place thereafter. The petitioners further pleaded that at one stage, they intended to file a suit and the concerned Court rejected the plaint, by observing that the jurisdiction of the civil Courts stands taken away, once the matter is governed by the provisions of the Act.

6. Through its order, dated 28.3.2011, the trial Court allowed the I.A. and returned the O.P., for presentation before the proper Court. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioners filed FCA No.80 of 2011 before this Court. A Division Bench of this Court dismissed the FCA through order, dated 29.3.2012, and upheld the order passed by the trial Court. This application is filed with a prayer to review the order passed by the Division Bench.

7. The petitioners contend that the view taken by the Division Bench regarding the purport of Section 7(1) of the Act does not accord with the spirit of the provision and the interpretation placed upon it, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. According to them, it would be sufficient, if an item of property was held by any of the spouses at the time of their marriage and for raising a dispute in relatio