Devan Ramachandran, J.

The petitioner challenges Ext.P8 order, dated 19.03.2025, of the learned Family Court, Ottappalam, which has found itself to have the jurisdiction to try O.P. No.208 of 2024.

2. The thrust of the argument of the petitioner, as made by his learned counsel - Sri.Santheep Ankarath, is that, going by Ext.P1 Original Suit filed by the 1^st respondent, the cause of action could have been tried only by the learned Munsiff’s Court. He further contended that, when the learned Family Court has found that “none of the parties to this proceedings are parties to marriage and that the relief sought is certainly not a relief pertaining to a marriage or on the basis of the relationship of the parties on the basis of a marriage.” (sic), it could not have then concluded that it has the jurisdiction to try the matter. He prayed that, consequently, this Original Petition be allowed; and Ext.P8 be quashed.

3. However, the learned counsel for respondents 1, 3 and 4 – Sri.T.R. Shaji, submitted that this is not a case where the learned Family Court has arrogated jurisdiction to itself for no reason; but that, it is based on earlier Ext.P6 order of the learned Munsiff Court, before whic