The exclusion of jurisdiction of the civil court should be either explicitly expressed or clearly implied, and the subject matter of the litigation should belong solely to the parties to the marriage for the Family Court jurisdiction to apply.

Firs! defendant in O.S.246 of 1984 of the Sub Court, Thrissur, a suit for partition, filed I.A. 2143 of 1993 for transferring the suit to the Family Court, Ernakulam. The said petition was dismissed by the learned Sub Judge. The revision petitioner challenges the said order in this revision.

2. Plaintiff/ respondent is the wife of the first defendant-revision petitioner. She instituted the suit for partition and allotment of her 1/3rd share in the plaint schedule property. Second defendant is the daughter of plaintiff and first defendant. The respondent alleged that herself, the revision petitioner and the second defendant are entitled to 1/3rd each in the plaint schedule property. But the first defendant maintained that his sisters are also entitled to share and that, the tenants of the rooms and his sisters arc also necessary parties. Accordingly they were also impleaded, the sisters of the revision petitioner are defendants 3 to 5, and defendants 6 and 7 are the tenants. In the counter affidavit to C.M.P. 3657 of 1993 filed by the revision petitioner for interim stay, the respondent mentions the circumstance which necessitated the impleadment of defendants 3 to 7. In that counter affidavit, the respondent would maintain that after the institution of the suit defendants 3 to 5, the sisters of the first defendant instituted O.S.165 of 1985 for partition without impleading the respondent and obtained a decree. Therefore, the respondent instituted O.S.246 of 1986 for declaration that preliminary decree in O.S.165 of 1985 is invalid and not binding on her. It is further averred in the counter affidavit that O.S.246 of 1984 from the order in which the revision arises, and O.S.246 of 1986 were allowed to be jointly tried and that after recording the evidence in the case, the said petition for transfer of the case to the Family Court was filed.

3. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as per Explanation (c) to S.7(1) read with S.8 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short' the act) the Sub Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit and therefore the suit has to be transferred to the Family Court. S.7(1) of the Act so far as the same is relevant reads:

7. Jurisdiction.- 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 jurisdiction under such law, to be a district court or, as the case may be, such subordinate civil court for the area to which the jurisdiction of the Family Court extends.

Explanation.-The suits and proceedings referred to in this sub-sect ion are suits and proceedings of the following nature namely:

(a)

(c) a suit: or proceeding between the parties to a marriage with respect to the property of the parties or of cither of them ;

(e)

(f)

(g) " (Emphasis supplied).

Section 8 of the Act enjoins that where a Family Court has been established for any area, no District Court or any Subordinate Civil Court shall, in relation to such area have or exercise any jurisdiction in respect of any suit or proceeding of the nature referred to in the Explanation to sub-section (1) of S.7 of the Act. So the main question for consideration is whether a suit of this nature will fall under clause (c) of the Explanation to S.7(1) of the Act. If the suit will attract clause (c) of Explanation, then by virtue of S.8 of the Act, the suit has to be transferred to the Family Court within whose jurisdiction the cause of action arose. The general principle is, every presumption should be made in favour of the jurisdiction of a Civil Court. In other words, the exclusion of jurisdiction of the civil court cannot be readily inferred. Exclusion of jurisdiction of the civil court should be either explicitly expressed or clearly