BALAKRISHNAN, J.

1. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is whether the Family Court lacks jurisdiction to decide the claim made by the first respondent-wife against her husband’s brother for return of money and whether the O.P. filed by her before the Family Court is a suit or proceeding ‘in circumstances arising out of a marital relationship’ as mentioned in explanation (d) to Section 7(1) of the Family Court Act (for short ‘the Act’). The first respondent-wife filed O.P. before the Family Court against her husband and his brothers. As against the appellant herein, the claim made by her was for recovery of Rs.1,20,700/-. Her case is that while the marital relationship between her and her husband (1st respondent in the O.P.) was subsisting, as directed and influenced by her husband, she stood as a surety for the appellant in a chitty transaction and since the appellant defaulted payment of the amount, a sum of Rs.28,500/- was recovered from her salary and thereafter she remitted Rs.92,200/- to close the loan transaction so as to avoid recovery of amount from her salary which was attached for recovery of the amount due from the appellant. The appellant and other respondents in the O.P. remained ex parte. Accepting the affidavit filed by her in lieu of chief examination, the court below granted a decree for return of the said amount of Rs.1,20,700/- and also granted the reliefs sought for against the other respondents.

2. The main plank of the argument advanced by Mr.R.T.Pradeep, the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Family Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit since the appellant is not a party to the marriage. According to the learned counsel, the Family Court shall have and exercise the jurisdiction exercisable by any civil court in respect of suits and proceedings and such a suit or proceeding should be between the parties to a marriage with respect to the property of the parties or of either of them.

3. The decision in Krishnan Nambudiri v. Thankamani (1994(1) KLT 607) is not applicable to the facts of this case since that decision was rendered interpreting explanation (c) to Section 7(1) of the Act. In that case the subject matter of the suit belonged not only to the parties to the marriage, the plaintiff and the first defendant, but belonged to others also. Hence, it was held that it is not enough that the suit is between the parties to the marriage, but the same should be with respect to the property of the parties or either of them.

4. In Ali Haji v. Alima (1996 (2) KLT 997) it was held: “Since, the objection sought to be put forward in this case is under clause (c) of the Explanation to S.7(1) of the Act, a subsisting marital relationship has to be posited before it could be said that the jurisdiction of the Family Court is attracted in respect of a dispute relating to property of either of the parties.” Therefore, that decision has no application to the facts of this case.

5. The decision in Abdul Jaleel v. Shahida [2003(2) KLT 403(SC)] was a case where the apex court was dealing with explanation (c) to Section 7. There it was held: “The wordings ‘disputes relating to marriage and family affairs and for matters connected therewith’ in the view of this Court must be given a broad construction. The Statement of Objects and Reasons, as referred to hereinbefore, would clearly go to show that the jurisdiction of the Family Court extends, inter alia, in relation to properties of spouses or of either of them which would clearly mean that the properties claimed by the parties thereto as a spouse of other; irrespective of the claim whether property is claimed during the subsistence of a marriage or otherwise.”

6. The family Courts Act was enacted with a view to promote conciliation in, and secure speedy settlement of disputes relating to marriage and family affairs and for matters connected therewith. The Law C