K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

1. The appellants are the plaintiffs and the respondents the defendants in O.S.No.274 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Palakkad. The plaint schedule property allegedly belonged to one Leela. She bequeathed it to her only son, Gopinathan and only daughter, the first defendant. Gopinathan also died. The first plaintiff is the wife and the second plaintiff the minor son of Gopinathan. On his death his ½ share in the plaint schedule property devolved equally on the plaintiffs. In the suit the plaintiffs pray for partition and separation of their ½ share in the property. Pending the suit the first defendant alienated the property to the additional second defendant. A contention was raised that the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of Section 7(1)(c) and (d) of the Family Courts Act and only the Family Court has jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. Placing reliance on the decision in Anilkumar v. Sheela (2011(4) KLT 120) and Vasumathi v. Valsan 2011(3) KLT 638 the lower court upheld the contention and ordered to return the plaint to be presented before the Family Court. This order is assailed in this appeal.

2. Heard the counsel on both sides.

3. Since only clauses (c) and (d) in the Explanation to section 7(1) arise for interpretation in this case, they alone are extracted below:

Section 7(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 purposes 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 the 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)............

(b)............

(c) a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage with respect to the property of the parties or of either of them;

(d) a suit or proceeding for an order or injunction in circumstances arising out of a marital relationship;

4. Clause (c) in the explanation requires two ingredients viz. the suit or proceedings

(1) should be between the parties to a marriage, and

(2) should be with respect of the property of the parties or of either of them.

Those two ingredients should exist at the same time. If any one of them is absent, the clause has no application.

5. The question whether the expression parties to a marriage may be given a wide interpretation was considered in Suprabha v. Sivaraman (2006 (1) KLT 712). The Division Bench took the view that in the context of Section 7(c) the meaning of the words “parties to a marriage” cannot be given such a wide interpretation as to include all those who are interested in the welfare of the couple or those who take part in the marriage ceremony. In Shyni v. George and others (1997 (1) KLJ 573) it is observed that if it were merely a suit against father-in-law it is quite clear that the suit could be instituted only in the ordinary civil court. In this case one of the plaintiffs is the wife of deceased Gopinathan; the first defendant is the only sister of Gopinathan and the other defendant is not even a relative. Thus this is not a proceedings between parties to a marriage.

6. There may be cases in which the Family Court does not have jurisdiction even though the parties to a marriage are parties to the proceedings and both or either or either of them has a right in the property involved in it. Devaki Antharjanam v. Narayanan Namboodiri (2006 (2) KLT 1022) is such a case. In a partition which took place in an Illam certain properties were allotted to a woman, her husband and their children. Later, a partition took place between these persons. The p