Oral Judgment:-

The order challenged in this Civil Revision Application has been passed by the Family Court, Mumbai on 8th June, 2004. By this order, the Family Court has rejected the application filed by the wife for rejecting the Marriage Petition. She had contended in her application that a Marriage Petition filed under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was not maintainable as she was married to the 1st respondent under the Foreign Marriage Act, 1969. The interim order passed by the Family Court in an application filed under section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been challenged in the writ petition. Since both the Civil Revision Application and the Writ Petition arise from orders passed in the same marriage petition filed before the Family Court, they are being heard together. For the sake of convenience the wife who is the applicant in the Civil Revision Application and the petitioner in the Petition will be hereafter be referred to as the petitioner. The husband who is Respondent No.1 in the Civil Revision Application and the sole Respondent in the Writ Petition will be referred to as the respondent.

2. Thefacts involved in the present Petition are as follows:-

3. The petitioner and the 1st respondent were married in Japan on 5th November, 1972. This marriage was solemnized in the Sumiyoshi Temple, Osaka, Japan. The marriage ceremony was performed by a Japanese Priest in the temple and according to the rites followed by the Japanese in that temple. The marriage was then registered under the Foreign Marriage Act. On 16th November, 1972 a certificate of registration was issued by the Consulate General of India, Kobe under Section 70 of the Foreign Marriage Act. The certificate was also signed by the petitioner and the 1st respondent. Three witnesses to the marriage have also signed the certificate of registration of the marriage besides the Consulate General of India, Kobe, Japan.

4. Respondent No.1 filed M.J. Petition No.A-1931 of 2003 under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. He also filed an application under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act for disposal of property.

5. TheFamily Court passed orders on the application filed. By an order of 30th December, 2003, certain interim orders were passed by the Family Court in respect of several properties, some of which were not owned by either the petitioner or the 1st respondent. The petitioner challenged that order by filing Writ Petition No.912 of 2004. An application was filed by the petitioner on 3rd February, 2004 before the Family Court contending that a preliminary issue be framed under Section 9-A of the Code of Civil Procedure as to whether the Petition could be entertained under the Hindu Marriage Act.

6. Accordingly the Family Court has passed the impugned order on 8th June, 2004 concluding that the marriage was solemnized under the Hindu Marriage Act, before the petitioner and the 1st respondent were married under the religious rites of the Sumiyoshi Temple. It was therefore held that a Petition under the Hindu Marriage Act was maintainable and could be entertained by the Family Court. It is this order, which has been challenged in the Revision Application. As a consequence, the Family Court allowed the application filed by the Respondent u/s. 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, partly.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when a marriage is registered under the Foreign Marriage Act, 1969, reliefs in case of a matrimonial dispute can only be obtained under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. She submits that a party cannot contend after being married under the Foreign Marriage Act that he or she is entitled to relief under the Hindu Marriage Act. She submits that the Family Court ought to have therefore exercised jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11(d) and Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure and rejected the Petition filed by respondent No.1. The learned Counsel submits that the Family Court fell in error when it conclu