1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the Petitioners and Respondent No.1.

2. By this Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners are challenging the order dated 6th October 2017 passed by City Civil Court Mumbai in Notice of Motion No.3049 of 2017 in S.C. Suit No.1295 of 2017.

3. The said Notice of Motion was preferred by the Petitioners, who are appearing in the trial Court as Defendant Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 6 for framing framing of preliminary issue under Section 9A of Code of Civil Procedure, on the ground that, the City Civil Court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit and the subject matter of the suit stands covered under the provisions of Section 7(1)(b) Explanation (d) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

4. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the present suit is filed by the Respondent No.1 herein seeking the relief of declaration that she is a legally wedded wife of deceased Ali Asgar Bhanpurwala and she is also one of the legal heir. She has also sought the relief of direction, injunction and partition. Her entire claim is based on her marital status, as the wife of deceased Ali Asgar Bhanpurwala and, in such situation, having regard to the relief of declaration claimed by her and also the other reliefs of declaration, injunction and partition which she has sought, only the Family Court can have the jurisdiction to decide the suit. However, as the suit is filed in the City Civil Court, the City Civil Court cannot have the jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit.

5. The trial Court vide its impugned order framed preliminary issue of jurisdiction and held that as the suit is not regarding the dispute between the husband and wife, it cannot be said that it is falling outside the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. It was further held that the Family Court cannot have jurisdiction over the subject matter, which is agitated in this suit and hence, the trial Court has answered the issue of jurisdiction in affirmative, holding that it has jurisdiction to decide the suit.

6. When the Writ Petition came before this Court on 16th January 2018, learned Counsel for Respondent No.1/Original Plaintiff has made submission at bar that the Plaintiff would be deleting prayer Clause (a) in the plaint, which pertains to the declaration that she is legally wedded wife of late Ali Asgar Bhanpurwala and which reads as follows:

“(a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that Plaintiff is legally wedded wife of late Shri Ali Asgar Bhanpurwala and she is also one of the legal heir of the said late Shri Ali Asgar Bhanpurwala.”

7. As a result thereof, now the suit before the trial Court stands confined to remaining prayer Clauses, which are reproduced as follows:

“(b) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Defendant no.1 to 7 & 12 to provide all information & documents as sought and as contained in clause no.7 of this suit and also to declare the current financial status of operations of above companies by filing affidavit along with all documents.

(b) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Defendant no.1 to 7 not to sell, transfer, create third party rights & deal with assets of the company except running normal business as required to run the company and maintain Status Quo in respect of assets including share etc. till this suit is finally decided.

(c) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to restrain the Defendants from transferring, dealing, selling, creating any third party rights either themselves or through their agents on all the properties belonging to late Shri Ali Asgar Bhanpurwala till this suit is finally decided.

(d) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct Defendant no.1 to 7 to pay Rs.50,000/- p.m. to Plaintiff till this Suit is finally heard which can then be adjusted from the overall amount eligible to be paid to Plaintiff.

(e) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to restrain Defendants not to deal