1. The order of the Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai dated 8th June 2004 declaring the inherent jurisdiction of the Family Court is challenged in the above Revision Application. Other interim orders dated 30th December 2003 and 9th January 2004 appointing a Commission and clarifying its ambit respectively are sought to be challenged in the above Writ Petition.

2. The issue of jurisdiction is the seminal dispute between the parties and must be first decided. Based upon that decision, the other interim orders relating to commission for certain inquiries with regard to the properties of the parties to the dispute would be seen. Respondent No.1/husband herein filed a divorce Petition being MJ Petition No.A-1931 of 2003 in Family Court, Mumbai. Aside from the relief of dissolution of his marriage with Petitioner No.1/wife herein, he applied for a number of reliefs with regard to the properties standing in the names of himself, his wife, his two sons as also a Trust settled by him which are claimed to be the properties purchased by him in the names of his family members. A Petition came to be filed for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(i)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA).

3. The parties are Hindus. They have been married in Kobe, Japan.

4. Upon the premise that the marriage was solemnised under the HMA, a Petition came to be filed under that Act in the Family Court by the husband. The wife claimed that their marriage was solemnised and registered not under the HMA but under the Foreign Marriage Act, 1969 (FMA). It is her case that the Petition could not have been filed under the HMA. It had to be filed under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (SMA) in the Family Court.

5. The territorial jurisdiction of the Family Court, Mumbai has not been disputed in the said Petition by the wife. She resided in Japan only between November 1972 and January 1973, after which she was residing in Mumbai. Consequently, she last resided in Mumbai when the Petition came to be filed and has accepted the territorial jurisdiction of the Court.

6. It has been her case that the Petition is not maintainable under the HMA and that the reliefs prayed for in the Petition, both for dissolution of the marriage as well as in respect of all the properties, claimed in the Petition by the husband are not maintainable. She applied for rejection of the Plaint/Petition under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. She claims that the relief of dissolution of marriage under the HMA is barred because the Act itself does not apply to the marriage solemnised between the parties. She further claims that the relief relating to the various properties claimed by the husband is barred under Section 7 Explanation-C that relief is claimed not only in respect of the property of the parties to the marriage or either of them but also properties admittedly of Respondent Nos.2 and 3 who are the sons of the parties.

7. These contentions must be separately considered.

8. Re : Relief of dissolution of marriage : The parties admittedly got married on 5th November 1972 in Kobe, Japan. That marriage has been registered as reflected in the certificate of marriage produced by the husband. The certificate of marriage, Exhibit-B to the Civil Revision Application, shows the certification by the Consul General of India, Kobe, certifying that the husband and the wife informed him in writing that they desired their marriage to be registered under Section 16 of the Foreign Marriage Act, 1969 (FMA) and had signed under the said certificate in the presence of three witnesses declaring that the marriage ceremony had been performed between them and that they had been living together as the husband and wife since the time of their marriage. The marriage came to be registered on 16th November 1972. The certificate has been issued under Section 14(2) of the FMA. Section 14(2) of the FMA Act runs thus:

“14. Certificate of marriage.- (2) On a certificate being entered in