JUDGMENT

BISWANATH RATH, J. - This Civil Revision involves an order dated 26.6.2014 rejecting an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. thereby rejecting the application at the instance of the wife-defendant for rejection of the plaint.

2. Short background involved in the case is O.P. 1 filed C.S. No.558/2013 praying therein for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,52,500/- with cost and up-to-date interest. Facts as narrated in the plaint is that on suppressing the mental ailments of their daughter, defendant-petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 got married of their daughter, defendant No.3 with the plaintiff-O.P. 1 herein. The marriage was solemnised on 26.6.2013. It is further pleaded that on arriving at a formal compromise of the dispute between the plaintiff and the defendants, on 8.9.2013 the defendant petitioner No.2 received back the articles and cash of Rs.2,52,500/- handed over by the plaintiff No.2 upon acknowledging a receipt thereof. On receipt of the articles and the amount as well, the plaintiff claimed that the cash involved therein was the settled amount towards permanent alimony to the wife. On the premises that as the defendant refused to sign the deed of compromise as well as in the joint application for dissolution of marriage, the plaintiff claimed, the defendants will be liable to return the said amount. Defendant-O.Ps. upon their appearance in the proceeding filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint, inter alia, contending that the facts whatever involved in the plaint since involved a matter relating to marriage between the wife and husband and the benefits involved in order to attain a compromise in the matter of dissolution of marriage for the clear restriction in the Family Act, 1984, simple suit for recovery of the amount is not maintainable.

Both parties also advanced argument in the light of their pleadings available in the plaint as well as the objection by the husband and the pleadings available in the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. at the instance of the defendants.

Considering the rival contentions of the parties and taking into consideration the decision relied upon by the present petitioners, the Trial Court rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. with the observation that neither the plaint did not have a cause of action nor the Court is in seisin is bereft of jurisdiction to decide such matter.

3. Challenging the impugned order, Sri Dash, learned Counsel for the defendants in the Court below while reiterating the stand taken in the Order 7 Rule 11 application, referring to the provisions contained in Section 7 of the Family Courts Act and relying on certain decisions reported in AIR 2016 SC 2161 (Balaram Yadav Vrs. Fulmaniya Yadav*), AIR 2003 SC 2525 (K.A.Abdul Jaleel vrs. T.A. Sahida), AIR 2010 Kerala 130 (Sindhu Sidharthan vrs. K.K. Sidharthan) and AIR 2002 Karnataka 399 (H.P. Lakshmidevaraje vrs. G.P.Asharani Atlas Nandini) submitted that the suit is not maintainable for the involvement of the dispute involving marriage between the plaintiff and defendant No.3. It is also contended that the decisions relied on by him are all supporting the case of the petitioners and thus requested this Court for interfering with the impugned order and setting aside the same.

4. Sri Katikia, learned Counsel for the husband- O.Ps. (plaintiffs in the suit) on the other hand while opposing the stand taken by the learned Counsel for the petitioners all through under the premises that there being no involvement of prayer for restitution or dissolution of marriage involved therein, the suit is a simple suit for recovery of money involved. Consequently in his attempt to justify the impugned order, Sri Katakia submitted that for no infirmity in the impugned order, there is no scope for interference in the impugned order by this Court and claimed for dismissal of the Civil Revision.

5. Considering the rival claim of the parties, this Court finds, the question r