The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Explanation (d) to Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act, which determines the jurisdiction of the Family Court in disputes arising from a marital relationship.

C. Pratheep Kumar, J.

This is a petition filed by the respondent in OP. No.66 of 2021 on the file of the Family Court, Muvattupuzha, against the order in I.A. No.6 of 2022 and I.A. No.7 of 2023 holding that the OP is maintainable.

2. The petitioner herein is the father in-law of the 1st respondent. The 3rd respondent is the husband of the 1st respondent and 2nd respondent is the daughter of the petitioner. The above O.P. was filed by the 1st respondent with a prayer for declaring her title over the schedule property, to set aside Settlement Deed No.3403/2020 of Muvattupuzha SRO, for a direction to the 1st respondent (petitioner herein) to assign the schedule property in her favour and in the alternative to permit her to realise a sum of Rs.6 Lakhs with interest from the petitioner and 2nd respondent.

3. The 1st respondent filed the above O.P contending that in connection with the marriage between herself and the 3rd respondent, a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- was entrusted with the petitioner herein as a trustee on the date of betrothal. Out of which Rs.1,00,000/- was deposited in the name of his daughter, the 2nd respondent as well as her husband, on the promise that the petitioner would assign the A schedule property in favour of the 1st respondent. It was further alleged that 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments of the 1st respondent was taken by the petitioner and given the same to the 2nd respondent on some understanding. However, in violation of the above understanding the petitioner has executed Settlement Deed No.3403/2020 in respect of the scheduled property in favour of the 2nd respondent. It was in the above context, the 1st respondent preferred the above O.P.

4. The petitioner herein, challenged the maintainability of the O.P. on the ground that the Family Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this O.P. However, as per the impugned order, the Family Court found that the O.P. is maintainable. Aggrieved by the above order, he preferred this O.P.

5. It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that it is a case in which the father-in-law executed a Settlement Deed in respect of his property in favour of his daughter, which is being challenged by the daughter-in- law. It was argued that the above dispute is not something arising out of the marital relationship between the respondents 1 and 3 and as such the Family Court has no jurisdiction in the matter. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent would argue that it is because of the marital relationship between respondents 1 and 3, a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments belonging to the 1st respondent was given to the petitioner herein and as such the dispute involved in the case is in 'circumstances arising out of a marital relationship' and as such, it will come within the purview of Explanation (d) to Section 7 (1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

6. As per Explanation (d) to Section 7 (1) of the Family Courts Act, a suit or proceeding for an order or injunction in circumstances arising out of a marital relationship would come within the jurisdiction of the Family Court. In the instant case, the specific case of the 1st respondent is that at the time of betrothal, a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- was entrusted with the petitioner herein as a trustee and out of which, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was deposited in the name of the 2nd respondent and her husband. It is also alleged that 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments belonging to the 1st respondent were taken by the petitioner and given to the 2nd respondent on the understanding that the schedule property will be assigned in favour of the 1st respondent. In violation of the above understanding, the petitioner executed settlement Deed No.3403/2020 in favour of the 2nd respondent.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Anitha v. Remani Nair [2014 KHC 873] to substantiate his contention that the Family Court has no jurisdiction in the matter. It was