JUDGMENT J. M. James, J. 1. The contention that has been raised by the petitioners, who wereimpleaded in O.P. No. 303/2004 on the file of Family Court, Ernakulam, is thatthe dispute between themselves and the respondent, Sajitha, cannot beadjudicated by the Family Court. 2. Sajitha filed O.P. No. 303/2004, before the Family Court, Ernakulam,praying for realization of the money against her husband and her motherinlaw. During the pendency, she bought petitioners herein, as additionalrespondents 3 and 4. Under Ext. P3 Order, the implement was allowed. Thiswas challenged on the ground that, they were strangers and they were notpresent at the time of the transaction of the properties during the marriagebetween Sajitha and her husband. 3. Both sides relied on the decision in Shiny v. Goerge and others (AIR 1997Kerala 231). After a detailed discussion, the learned Single Judge of this Court(P. K. Balasubramanyan, (J)), as he then was, came to the conclusion that "the very scheme of the Family Court Act, would stand defeated, and thespouse who is sued, can always take up the stand that he had made over theproperty to a stranger, and when the suing spouse is compelled to impleadthat person, the suit would be taken out of the purview of the Family Court anda cause of action would be maintainable before the Family Court when thesuing spouse is forced to implead persons other than the other spouseincluding the close relatives of the other spouse or a stranger". 4. In the case at hand, a plea has been advanced by the wife, Sajitha, that herfather had handed over 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments, one washingmachine and one lakh rupees the total amount being Rs. 2,73,610/-.Khadeeja, mother inlaw, Nassarudheen, the brother of her husband, the wifeof Nassarudheen, and another brother of her husband, Sakeer, who hadsquandered away the entire assets given at the time of the marriage, andduring the pendency of the proceedings in order to defeat the decree thatwould be obtained by Sajitha. Khadeeja had transferred the property in favourof Nassurdheen and his wife. Therefore, they have to be brought in theproceedings, O.P. No. 303/2004, being tried by the Family Court. Thiscontention is challenged by the counsel for the petitioners. 5. On going through the facts of this case, I am of the view that, both sidescan raise their respective contentions before the Court below, which shallappreciate the evidence that would be adduced by both sides. Thiscontention is challenged by the counsel for the petitioners. 5. On going through the facts of this case, I am of the view that, both sidescan raise their respective contentions before the Court below, which shallappreciate the evidence that would be adduced by both sides. The FamilyCourt, under in S.'7' of the Family Court Act, is to dispose of the disputesraised before it, not only by the spouses, but also their wives, relatives orothers, to who the transfer of the property, which had been given during themarriage, or thereafter, is brought in for decision. Without entering into anydiscussion on the merit of this matter, I sustain the parties impleaded, vis., therespondent 3 and 4 through I.A. No. 1829/2004 in O.P. No. 303/2004. 6. The learned Family Court Judge shall appreciate the rival contentions ofthe parties and dispose of the same, according to law. The rights of the partiesover the properties alleged or pleaded by Sajitha, and also challenged byNassurudeen and his wife, shall also be considered by the Family Court. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.