The jurisdiction of the Family Court under S.7(1)(c) of the Family Courts Act extends to disputes between parties to a marriage, even after the dissolution of the marriage, if the disputes are closely connected with family disputes.

Balakrishnan, J.

The respondent in O.P. No. 343/96 on the file of the Family Court, Ernakulam is the appellant. The respondent herein filed a petition before the Family Court for a declaration of her right over one item of immovable property and also for partition and separate possession of a share in another item of immovable property. The respondent alleged that her marriage with the appellant was on 3.1.1988 and two children were born in the wed lock. The respondent alleged that the appellant acquired 9 cents of land mentioned as 'A' Schedule in the petition in his name with the funds provided by the respondent. The respondent also contended that' B' Schedule property was purchased by the appellant with the funds raised by him by selling the gold ornaments of the respondent. The appellant is working in a Gulf country. It is admitted that the appellant divorced the respondent on 1.11.1995 in accordance with the Muslim rites.

2. The appellant filed a counter statement before the Family Court denying the allegations contained in the petition. He had also raised a contention that at the time of filing of the petition by the respondent, she was no longer the wife of the appellant and there was no valid subsisting marriage between the appellant and the respondent and, therefore, the petition for declaration of her right over the property and partition and separate possession of a share in another item of immovable property held by the appellant was not maintainable and the Family Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such a petition.

3. The Family Court Judge considered the objections and held that under Clause (c) of Explanation to S.7(1) of the Family Courts Act, the petition filed by the respondent herein was maintainable. This finding of the Family Court is challenged in the appeal.

4. We heard the appellant's counsel and counsel for the respondent. According to the appellant's counsel, a petition for declaration and partition of the property could be filed by a person who is the party to the subsisting marriage and once the marriage is dissolved, the respondent could not be taken as a party to the marriage and it is argued, that the Family Court Judge went wrong in holding that the petition was maintainable. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that she was the wife of the appellant and the petition of this nature is maintainable under S.7(1)(c) of the Family Courts Act. The respondent has also raised a contention that the appeal is not maintainable, as an appeal under S.19(1) of the Family Courts Act would lie only against the final order and not against an interlocutory order.

4A. We shall first consider the maintain ability of the appeal. An issue was framed by the Family Court regarding the maintainability of the petition and the issue was considered as a preliminary issue and an order was passed by the Family Court. The finding of the Family Court that it has got jurisdiction to entertain the petition will certainly affect the rights of the parties. An appeal may not lie against an interlocutory order which does not affect the rights of the parties. The expression "interlocutory order" has to be understood in the context of the meaning of the expression "case decided" in S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was held by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of one of us (Patnaik, J.) in Union of India v. India Cements Ltd. (199o (1) KLT SN at Page 40 - Case No. 52) that:

"Where during the proceeding some order is passed which adjudicates for the purpose of the suit some rights or obligations of the parties in controversy, it can be construed as a case decided. An interlocutory order which did not adjudicate upon or determine any question relating to the rights of the parties does not amount to a case decided. The expression "case decided" is not limited in its import to the entirety of the matter in dispute in a notion. Case includes a part of the case. The expression case does not always mean the