IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, and the exemption of proceedings before the Family Court from ad-valorem fees under the Court Fees Act.

JUDGMENT :

P.M. MANOJ, J.

1. The above Original Petition is preferred being aggrieved by Ext.P3 order passed by Family Court, Ernakulam. The Family Court rejected the challenges raised by the petitioner as regards the maintainability of the Original Petition.

2. Short facts are as under:

The Original Petition before the Family Court was preferred by Sri. K. Kadher Nazeer, arraying his wife Jubairiya C.K. as the 1st respondent, and the petitioner herein as the 2nd respondent. It was contended in the petition that the marriage between him and the 1st respondent was solemnized on 17.11.1991. While he was working abroad, the wife mooted a proposal for the purchase of 5 cents of land belonging to her father. He contends that though the sale consideration was provided by him, the property was purchased in the name of the wife. Later, the relationship between the husband and wife became strained. On his arrival back to India in 2018, February, he realised that his wife had already sold the property to the 2nd respondent/petitioner claiming that she is the actual owner of the property. It was in the above backdrop that the petition was filed before the Family Court to declare that the petitioner-husband is the absolute owner of the property, for setting aside the sale deed and for injunction. The respondent wife was set ex-parte as she did not care to appear before the Family Court.

3. The 2nd respondent/petitioner contested the proceedings and in his written statement raised two contentions. He contended that the relief claimed to be one for declaration of title, and that the petition should have been valued under Section 25 of the Court Fees Act. He also raised an issue as to the very maintainability of the petition contending that the Family Court would have no jurisdiction to entertain the petition as the 2nd respondent/petitioner is a total stranger to the marital relationship between the original petitioner and the 1st respondent wife. He preferred I.A. No. 1/2023 seeking to consider the maintainability issue of the petition as a preliminary issue.

4. The learned Family Court, after considering the contentions advanced in light of the law laid down by this Court in various judgments, repelled his contentions. The above order is under challenge in this petition.

5. Sri. M.N. Manmadan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the order passed by the Family Court cannot be sustained under law. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner is not a family member of either the husband or the wife. If that be the case, the dispute involved cannot be considered as a family dispute, and the family court will not have jurisdiction to entertain the matter. It is further asserted that the interpretation given by the Family Court to confer jurisdiction on itself would lead to frivolous litigations. The petitioner herein further contended that after the execution of deed, the mutation has been effected in his favour and he has now completed the construction of a building on the said property. It is also contended by the petitioner herein that after the institution of the suit, the husband and wife have mortgaged their respective properties for availing a loan by standing as sureties, which would show that the entire proceeding is collusive. He also contends that the petition has not been properly valued.

6. We have carefully considered the contentions advanced by the counsel appearing for the petitioner and have perused the impugned order.

7. It would be appropriate at this juncture to refer to the relevant portion of Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 which reads as follows:

(a) 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 proceeding of the nature referred to in the explanation.

(b) be deemed, for the purposes