The Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the fair and final order passed in H.A.M.O.P.No.443 of 2005, dated 26.09.2005, on the file of the Family Court, Coimbatore and to allow the above Civil Revision Petition.

2. The following are the allegations in brief found in the petition filed by the 2nd respondent:

Both the petitioners are husband and wife. Their marriage was held on 25.08.1952. They had no children. The Respondent is the sisters husband of the 2nd petitioner. His wife is Pushpavalli. Their marriage took place in 1968. They have three daughters. Among them, the first daughter is one Vijaya. She was born on 13.03.1970. The 2nd and 3rd children Maheswari and Sarada are living with their parents. Pushpavalli died on 29. 1994. The petitioners decided to adopt the said Vijaya for which the respondent agreed. On 7. 1970, the adoption took place. It was not for any consideration. The petitioners got the capacity to take Vijaya in adoption and in turn, she was also capable of being taken to adoption. The parties are Hindus. The custom and usage furnished in the petitioners to take the child in adoption. The adoptive parents do not have any progenies. As per the Hindu Customs, rites and rituals, a Homam was performed for taking Vijaya in adoption. On 6. 1997, the adoption deed was registered in Gandhipuram Sub-Registrar Office at Coimbatore. Since the adoption of Vijaya by this petitioners has to be regularized, this petition has been filed.

3. The respondent remained ex-parte before the Family Court. Both the petitioners were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2. The Adoption Deed, dated 6. 1997, was also marked. The learned Judge of the Family Court, Coimbatore has adverted to the facts of the case and finally concluded that the petitioners are entitled for the relief of regularisation of the adoption as pleaded in the petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner being one among the legal heirs of the propositus Ramasamy Naicker, she is entitled to question the adoption allegedly undertaken place by the petitioners, even though, she is not a party to the proceedings before the Family Court. It is his further contention that suppressing the material facts projecting false claims and in order to gain wrongfully, the petitioners approached the wrong forum, namely, the Family Court, instead of putting forth their request for relief before the competent civil court.

5. Conversely, Mr.T.R.Rajaram, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that the present petitioner has no locus standi to file this application and she is in no way prejudiced by the adoption and the relief accorded by the Family Court, is legally sustainable.

6. It is the bottom-line contention of the petitioner that the Family Court is not competent to deal with the issue. It is also argued that Rangasamy was no more on the date of passing the order of the Family Court on 26.09.2005, since he breathed his last on 10.09.2005 itself. Hence, it is stated that the order passed by the Family Court is a nullity, having no legal force. In order to find out whether the Family Court has got jurisdiction to deal with the affairs relating to adoption, Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, (in short Act) has to be gone through, which reads as follows:

Section 7: Jurisdiction-(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a Family Court shall

.(a) have and exercise all the jurisdiction execrable 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 the jurisdiction of the Family Court extends.

Explanation:- The suits and proceedings referred to in this sub section are suits and proceedings of the f