JUDGMENT :

The following judgment of the Court is delivered by Prashant Kumar Mishra, Acting Chief Justice.

1. This appeal under Section 19 (1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short 'the Act, 1984') has been preferred by the husband of the deceased wife challenging the judgment and decree of the trial Court allowing the suit preferred by the appellant's father-in-law for return of the properties gifted to his late daughter Pratima Singh at the time of her marriage with the appellant.

2. While deciding the suit the trial Court has also rejected the appellant's objection to the maintainability of the suit before the Family Court to hold that the Family Court has jurisdiction to decide the suit.

3. The substantial part of the argument advanced before us revolved on this issue, therefore, we shall first deal with the issue concerning jurisdiction of the Family Court.

4. Facts of the case, very briefly stated, are that the appellant and Late Pratima Singh were married on 23-6-2007. Pratima Singh committed suicide on 3-1-2009 for which an offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the family members of the appellant, but we are not concerned with the dispute concerning the cause of death or as to who is responsible for such death. The present suit under Section 7(1)(c) of the Act, 1984 was moved by the respondent herein [father of late Pratima Singh] claiming return of various properties gifted to his daughter at the time of marriage. The appellant herein objected to the jurisdiction of the Family Court. Additional statement to this effect pleaded in the written statement is not happily worded, however, since the parties have gone to trial with an understanding that the said part of the objection relates to the jurisdiction of the Family Court and not only to the place where the suit will lie, we proceed to decide the appeal to deal with the merits of the objection regarding maintainability of the suit before the Family Court.

5. Mr. Anand Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would argue that the family Court would only have jurisdiction to decide a suit or proceedings between the parties to a marriage with respect to the properties of the parties or either of them, as provided under Section 7(1) Explanation (c) of the Act, 1984, therefore, the present suit having been filed by the father-in-law, who was not a party to the marriage, the Family Court has no jurisdiction to decide the suit.

6. Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, per contra, would argue that the word 'parties to the marriage' cannot be given a restricted meaning. The present suit by father of the wife (father-in-law of the husband) is for return of Stridhana properties gifted to his daughter at the time of marriage, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiff steps into the shoes of his deceased daughter who was party to the marriage, therefore, the suit is maintainable.

7. To buttress their respective contentions, learned counsel for both the parties would place reliance upon the decisions rendered in Suprabha v Sivaraman K.K. & Anr., AIR 2006 Kerala 187, K.A. Abdul Jaleel v T.A. Shahida, (2003) 4 SCC 166, Leby Issac v Leena M. Ninan alias Lincy and Others, 2005 SCC OnLine Ker 345 : AIR 2005 Ker 285, P. Srihari v Kum. P. Sukunda and another, AIR 2001 Andhra Pradesh 169, Rakhi Deorankar v Jayendra Deorankar, (2008) 5 MhLJ 98, O.M. Meyyappa Chattier v Kannappa Chattier and Others, AIR 1976 Madras 154, Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v The Management of Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353, Bobbili Ramakrishna Raja Yadad and Others v State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh and Another, (2016) 3 SCC 309, Syamaladevi v Sarala Devi & Ors., 2009 SCC OnLine Ker 508 : AIR 2009 Ker 138, Pratibha Rani v Suraj Kumar and Another, (1985) 2 SCC 370, May George v Special Tahsildar and Others, (2010) 13 SCC 98