Raman, J.

This writ petition arises out of an order passed by the Family Court deciding the jurisdictional issue as a preliminary issue as directed by this Court in an earlier proceeding - W.P.(C) 17711/2006. The above said writ petition was filed against an order granting an interim relief of injunction restraining the petitioner herein from receiving the pensionary benefits due to deceased Bhaskara Pillai who is alleged to be the husband of the petitioner. Though question of jurisdiction as such was not raised at that time, such a contention was raised in the writ petition and therefore, this Court directed the Family court to decide the question of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue. It is thereafter that the resent order was passed holding that the Family Court has jurisdiction under Section 7 of the Family Court Act and also territorial jurisdiction and that the particular Family Court has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

2. The essential facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition can be stated as follows:

The petitioner herein is a respondent in O.P. 2348/2005 instituted by respondent s 1 and 2 herein for a declaration that the first respondent is the legally wedded wife and the second respondent is the son of Bhaskara Pillai and to allow the first respondent to receive the family pension in respect of deceased Bhaskara Pillai and for an injunction restraining the authorities from disbursing the family pension to the petitioner herein. The contention on the part of the respondents was that Bhaskara Pillai married Sarala Devi- the first respondent on 23.1978 and the second respondent Anoop was born out of that wedlock. Bhaskara Pillai retired from service as a Lower Primary School Head Master in 2003 and he died on 9.2005. Petitioner herein claimed to be the legally wedded wife of Bhaskara Pillai and according to her, that marriage was solemnized on 24.1983, after dissolving the marriage between the first respondent herein and Bhaskara Pillai. Therefore, according to the petitioner herein, there was a marriage between Bhaskara Pillai and the first respondent herein which has been dissolved prior to her marriage with him. Since after the retirement of Bhaskara Pillai, petitioner was receiving the family pension as a nominee, necessarily the first respondent had to seek a declaration regarding her arital status with that of Bhaskara Pillai before proceeding to seek other incidental reliefs like pension etc. Since a declaration was sought for by the first respondent and her son to the effect that the first respondent is the legally wedded wife of Bhaskara Pillai and the second respondent is born in that wedlock, it was contended that the Forum where could the matter be agitated is the Family court which has got territorial jurisdiction. By order dated 16.2.2008 in I.A. 1821/2007, the Family Court held that the dispute relating to the marital status of the first respondent herein with late Bhaskara Pillai vis-à-vis rises for consideration and it is in the nature of a dispute specifically referred to under Section 7(1)(b) of the Family Court Act and as such the dispute has to be decided by the Family Court. The court went on to consider the question of territorial jurisdiction with reference to Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, and held that under Section 19(1)(iii)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Family Court, Nedumangad has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case. As regards this finding, no dispute is raised by the petitioner and no serious arguments were raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein. In the absence of any dispute regarding the residence of the petitioner in the original petition and considering the relief sought for, it cannot be said that the finding entered in to by the Family Court is in any way illegal or wrong and as such the said finding is confirmed.

3. The main question thus remains to be resolved in this proceedings i