Basant, J –

1. How are the words "suit or other proceedings for an order or injunction in circumstances arising out of a marital relationship" in explanation (d) to Sec.7 to be understood? Does the unsatisfactory language deserve and need clarification by this Court before the legislature intervenes to amend the statutory provision? These questions disturb us in this appeal.

2. These petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution by the petitioners asserting that the dispute involved in O.S.No.173 of 2006 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Thalassery and O.P.No.322 of 2006 before the Family Court, Kannur are to be settled and decided by the Family Court alone and not by any other court.

3. A brief resume of events which have led to these two petitions may be relevant and vital to correctly comprehend the disputes. We are referring to the parties and documents as they are ranked/marked in O.P.No.976 of 2010.

4. Petitioner No.1 is the wife of respondent No.1. Their marriage took place on 22.9.1984. Two children are born in the wedlock. The second petitioner is one of those two children. The other child, it is submitted at the Bar, is residing with the first respondent.

5. On 25.4.2006, Ext.P1 petition was filed by the petitioners herein against the first respondent claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. In paragraph-8 of Ext.P1, it is specifically stated that a charge is created over an item of property standing in the name of the first respondent.

6. Notice in that proceedings - M.C.No.150 of 2006 was ordered to the first respondent. He acknowledged receipt of notice under Ext.P3 dated 12.5.2006. According to the petitioners, hurriedly, to defeat the interests of the petitioners, the first respondent executed Ext.P2 sale deed on 5.6.2006 in favour of the second respondent, allegedly, a close relative of the first respondent. According to the petitioners, the second respondent is only a name lender to the first respondent in his scheme to vex and harass the petitioners.

7. With that end in view, the second respondent allegedly instituted Ext.P4 suit, i.e. O.S.No.173 of 2006 before the Munsiff's Court, Thalassery. Altogether there were four defendants in that suit. First respondent - the transferor was arrayed as the first defendant. The first petitioner herein was the second defendant in that suit. The father and brother of the first petitioner were arrayed as defendants 3 and 4. No relief was claimed against the first respondent. It was specifically stated in paragraph-4 that the first defendant (first respondent herein) "was made a party to the suit only for proper justice and no relief is claimed against him, since no illegal act was there from the side of defendant No.1". According to the petitioners herein, that suit was filed by the second respondent against the first petitioner herein and two others in collusion with the first respondent as a name lender of the first respondent only to vex and harass the petitioners.

8. That suit was filed on 23.6.2006. Immediately thereafter both petitioners herein, on 29.6.2006 filed O.P.No.322 of 2006 before the Family Court, Kannur against respondents 1 and 2. The relief claimed therein was a declaration that Ext.P2 sale deed is void and for a consequential injunction from throwing the petitioners out of the house situated in the property covered by Ext.P2 sale deed.

9. As these proceedings i.e. O.S.No.173/2006 and O.P.No.322 of 2006 were pending before the two different courts, the petitioners filed an application before this Court to transfer O.S.No.173 of 2006 pending before the Munsiff's Court, Thalassery to the Family Court, Kannur. By Ext.P6 judgment, a learned Single Judge of this Court did not allow the transfer, but observed that the question whether O.S.No.173 of 2006 was maintainable before the civil court must be raised before the civil court.

10. That question was raised before the civil court and the civil court by Ext.P7 order too