Hema, J.

Does a family court have jurisdiction to entertain a suit filed by a husband for recovery of money as compensation and damages from his wife and father-in-law? What are the requirements to invoke jurisdiction under section 7(1) read with explanation (d) of the Family Court’s Act (the Act for short)? What is meant by the expression, ‘in circumstances arising out of a marital relationship’ used in Explanation (d) to section 7(1) of the Act? Do such ‘circumstances’ include only those occurrences which transpired during marital relationship alone? These are the main questions which arise in this appeal for consideration.

2. Facts in this case briefly, are as follows: Appellant filed a suit before the Family Court against his wife, father-in-law and alleged adulterer of his wife as defendants 1 to 3. They are respondents 1 to 3 in this appeal. Relief sought for in the suit is to recover Rs.10 lakhs as compensation and damages from respondents 1 and 2 with costs. As per the averments in the suit, appellant married first respondent as per religious rites in 1997. But, after marriage, appellant came to know that his wife was leading illicit relationship with third respondent prior to the marriage and even thereafter. They are living in adultery. This fact was known to his wife’s parents, but they suppressed this fact and committed fraud on appellant in solemnizing the marriage.

3. It is further averred in the plaint that all the efforts taken by appellant to correct first respondent were futile. His wife joined her parents who are employed at Muscat. Appellant filed O.P.No.336 of 2001 for dissolution of marriage before Family Court on the ground of adultery. The case is still pending for disposal. Appellant had spent Rs.2.5 lakhs for conducting the marriage itself, but his wife refused to cohabit with him and discharge marital obligations in view of her illicit relationship with the 3rd respondent. All these resulted in pain and suffering to appellant and family which are unascertainable in terms of money. Respondents 1 and 2 are therefore liable to pay compensation and damages. Appellant limited his claim to Rs.10 lakhs and filed this suit for a decree allowing him to recover the amount as compensation and damages from respondents 1 and 2 and their assets with costs. These are in short, the averments in the plaint.

4. Lower court held that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit involved in this case. According to lower court, suit of the nature filed in this case will not be covered by Explanation (d) to Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act. The court below found that cause of action set forth in the suit is the alleged misrepresentation on the part of the respondents, the defiant and wayward attitude of the first defendant in discharging their marital obligations culminating in mental agony and troubles to plaintiff/appellant and hence the suit cannot be treated as a suit or proceeding for an order of injunction in circumstances arising out of a marital relationship. Plaint was returned to appellant for presentation before proper court and hence this appeal.

5. According to learned counsel appearing for appellant, the cause of action in the suit arises from the marital relationship between appellant and respondents 1 and 2 and hence, Family Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit as per section 7(1) read with Explanation (d) of the Family Courts Act (the Act, for short). To decide the issue on jurisdiction, a reading of Section 7 of the Family Court’s Act, 1984 is necessary. Section 7 of the Act is extracted as hereunder:

“Sec.7: Jurisdiction. – (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a Family Court shall, --

(a) have and exercise all the jurisdiction exercisable by any district court or any subordinate civil court under any law for the time being in force in respect of suits and proceedings of the nature referred to in the Explanation; and

(b) be deemed, for the purposes of exercising such jurisdic