R. Narayana Pisharadi, J.

The appellant is the mother of the first respondent. The second respondent is the husband of the first respondent.

2. The appellant filed O.P.No.536/2013 against the respondents in the Family Court for realisation of an amount of twenty six lakhs rupees allegedly due to her from them. The respondents filed an application as I.A.No.457/2015 praying that the original petition may be dismissed for want of jurisdiction by the Family Court to try the case. They contended that the parties to the original petition are not parties to a marriage and therefore, the Family Court has got no jurisdiction under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to entertain and try the original petition. On the other hand, the appellant contended that the transaction, on the basis of which she claimed money from the respondents, is one that took place in circumstances arising out of a marital relationship and therefore, the original petition filed by her is maintainable under Clause (d) of the explanation to Section 7(1) of the Act. The Family Court negatived the contention of the appellant and ordered that the original petition shall be returned to her for presentation before the proper court having jurisdiction. The aforesaid order is challenged in this appeal.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the respondents.

4. Before considering the rival contentions, we shall briefly refer to the material averments in the original petition filed by the appellant in the Family Court. The marriage between the appellant and her husband Krishnan was on 21/03/1977. The first respondent and another daughter were born in that wedlock. The daughters were given in marriage and they were residing with their husbands. The appellant and her husband were residing in their house at Perinthalmanna for the past 18 years. Then, on account of physical problems, the husband of the appellant wanted to reside near the residence of the first respondent. In the month of September 2011, the appellant and her husband entrusted the respondents the responsibility of purchasing a house for them. The appellant sold her property having an extent of 20 cents at Perinthalmanna. She gave a total amount of twenty six lakhs rupees to the respondents for purchasing a property and a house in her name. But, the appellant came to know that six cents of land with a building therein was purchased in the name of the first respondent and some other properties were purchased in the name of the second respondent. Therefore, the appellant claims that she is entitled to realise the amount of twenty six lakhs rupees given by her to the respondents.

5. Section 7 of the Act deals with jurisdiction of the Family Courts. Section 7(1) of the Act reads as follows:

"7. Jurisdiction :--(1) 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 purpose 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 jurisdiction of the Family Court extends.

Explanation:--The suits and proceedings referred to in this sub-section are suits and proceedings of the following nature, namely:--

(a) a suit or proceedings between the parties to a marriage for a decree of nullity of marriage (declaring the marriage to null and void or, as the case may be annulling the marriage) or restitution of conjugal rights or judicial separation or dissolution of marriage;

(b) a suit or proceeding for a declaration as to the validity of marriage or as to the matrimonial status of any person;

(c) a suit or proceeding between the parities to a marriage with respect to the property of the parties or of e