C.K. Abdul Rehim, J.

1. The appellants as well as the respondents 2 and 3 herein are the respondents in O.P. No. 1409/2014 instituted before the Family Court, Thrissur by the 1st respondent herein. The 1st appellant is the mother-in-law of the 1st respondent. The 2nd appellant and the 2nd respondent are her brothers-in-law. The 3rd appellant and the 3rd respondent are the wives of 2nd appellant and 2nd respondent, respectively.

2. Case before the Family Court was filed based on the averments that, the 1st respondent was the owner in possession of 'A'-schedule property situated at Kodungallur, which is having an extent of 18 cents. The property described as 'B'-Schedule is a property purchased by the 1st appellant. Allegation is that, for the purpose of purchasing 'B'-Schedule property, the 1st appellant took loan from a Bank by mortgaging the 'B'-Schedule property. But she failed to repay the loan. The amounts due in the said loan account was paid by the 1st respondent, by selling 'A'-Schedule property. It is alleged that, there was an agreement that the 'B'-Schedule property will be assigned by the 1st appellant to the 1st respondent. But, instead of doing so the 1st appellant had created documents assigning the 'B'-Schedule property in the name of the 2nd appellant and the 2nd respondent herein, through Document No. 483/2006 of SRO Kalyassery. Therefore, case before the Family Court was instituted by seeking a declaration that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the properties described as 'B' and 'C'-Schedules and for a consequential relief of recovery of possession of those properties from appellants 2 & 3.

3. The appellants and the respondents 2 and 3 entered appearance before the Family Court and filed objections refuting all the allegations and inter alia raising a preliminary objection on the question of jurisdiction of the Family Court, contending that in the absence of the husband of the 1st respondent on the party array, the original petition could not be maintained before the Family Court, because it will not come within the purview of a matrimonial dispute under Section 7 (1) (d) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. It is contended that, even if all the allegations in the suit are sustainable, the relief can be sought for only in a civil court, is the contention.

4. The Family Court considered the question of maintainability as a preliminary issue and passed the order impugned in this appeal, on 07.08.2015, by holding that the dispute will squarely fall within the ambit and scope of explanation (d) of Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act. It is found that the dispute had arisen out of circumstances related to the marital relationship, and but for the marriage of the 1st respondent with the son of the 1st appellant, there would not have been any occasion for having the transactions mentioned in the original petition. Therefore, it is held that the original petition is maintainable before the Family Court. It is aggrieved by the said order of the Family Court this appeal is filed.

5. Contentions of the appellants in brief is that, the case will not fall within the scope of Explanation (d) to Section 7 (1) of the Family Courts Act. It is argued that for bringing a suit or a proceedings within the ambit of Section 7 (1), it should be a suit or a proceedings between the parties to the marriage or at least the cause of action should be one casting a liability or obligation on a party to a marriage. It is pointed out that the husband of the 1st respondent, who is son of the 1st appellant and the brother of the 2nd appellant and the 2nd respondent, is not a party in the suit. The declaration sought for is with respect to the title over a property which is exclusively belonging to the 1st appellant, who is the mother-in-law of the 1st respondent. There is also an allegation that the suit was instituted by the 1st respondent in collusion with her husband, and it is the husband who had caused a lawyer notice to the 1st