K. Raviraja Pandian, J.

The appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 02.01.2002 made in O.S.No.80 of 2000 decreeing a suit for partition and separate possession of respondents half share in the suit properties. The correctness of the said decree is canvassed in this appeal.

.2. The brief facts are :-

.The appellant and the respondent were wife and husband. The marriage that took place between the appellant and the respondent on 06.09.1965 was dissolved by a decree of divorce granted by the High Court of creteil, France on 25.03.1998. On the marriage being dissolved, the spouses are entitled to have half share each in the property that belonged to the "Communate legale". On the aforesaid ground, the respondent sought for decree for partition before the Family Court, Pondicherry. Before the Family Court, Pondicherry it was the defence of the appellant that the High Court of creteil, while granting divorce dated 25.03.1998, also ordered for partition of the property of spouses as envisaged under the French legal system. That judgment of the High Court of Creteil dated 25.03.1998 was marked as Ex.A13 and the translated copy was marked as Ex.A14. As per that judgment, the Court, while considering the question of divorce and the consequence of divorce, had decided the share of the parties and had also provided for liquidation of the spouses joint assets. As per the said judgment, the parties are at liberty to move the President of Paris, Interdepartmental Chamber of Notaries or the person whom he delegates with this operation for liquidation of the matrimonial settlement.

3. In view of the judgment it was contended that the present suit before the Family Court, Pondicherry was barred by res judicata and the respondent was at liberty to seek execution of the decree of the High Court of creteil. Therefore, the suit for partition was not maintainable. The Family Court negatived the contention and granted the relief. Hence this appeal.

.4. Mr. R. Subramanian, learned counsel for the appellants raised two contentions one as to the jurisdiction of the Court with reference to section 7 of the Family Courts Act, particularly, clause C to Explanation Section 7. According to him, the Explanation c refers to a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage with respect to the property of the parties or of either of them. So, it is obvious that the suit with respect of properties should be between the parties to a marriage. In this case, the marriage having been already dissolved as early as 1998, the present suit which is filed in the year 2000 before the Family Court is without jurisdiction, in view of the said provision.

5. The second contention is that the decree granted by the High Court of Creteil would operate as a res judicata and as such the parties are bound by the decree of the High Court of creteil and the suit is not maintainable.

6. Mr. T.P.Manoharan, learned counsel for the respondent refuted the contention of the appellant by contending that the suit is very much maintainable under section 7 of the Family Courts Act, which has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon any question relating to the properties of divorced parties. He further contended that the prayer sought for before the High Court of Creteil was for divorce. In Minutes No.1023/98 Dossier No.96/32605/6D dated 25.03.1988, the Court granted the relief of divorce based exclusively on the fault of either parties and for the payment of compensatory alimony of 2000 FF per month. Even the defence taken in the above referred to decree is that the exclusive fault is on the part of the appellant and further prayer was for confirmation of the measures taken at the time of non conciliation order regarding his son as well as setting up of an occupation indemnity regarding the family home beginning on the date of the judgment. Of course, it is in this context, certain observations were made about the liquidation of the properties. The said observation canno