JUDGMENT : Asper Krishn Kumar Lahoti , J . : - Thisappeal is directed against an order dated 2-5-2011 passed by the Family Court, Shahdol in Civil Suit No. 1-B/11 by which the Family Courtrejected an application filed by the appellants under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC fordismissal of the suit filed by the respondent against the appellant. 2.The contentions of the appellant before this Court are summarised as under:- "(1)That, the suit under Section 7 (1) (c) of the Family Courts Act, alone for refundof Stridhan could not have been filed as there was norelief prayed in the suit in respect of main relief as are envisaged underSections 9, 10 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It was submitted thatthe return of the Stridhan could not have beengranted by the Family Court. Suit between the husband and wife was not inrespect of any relief as provided under Sections 9, 10 and 13 of the HinduMarriage Act, 1955. In support of this contention he had referred to Section 27of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. (2)The suit filed against the appellants herein except appellant No. 1 was notmaintainable before the Family Court as the appellant Nos. 2 to 7 do not fall within the category of "parties to amarriage". Placing reliance to the judgment of a Division Bench of Kerala High Court in Suprabha Vs. Sivaraman K.K. and another, AIR 2006 Kerala 187, and a Full Bench judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Vinod Kumar Sethi and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, AIR1982 Punjab & Haryana 372, it was submitted by Shri Pathak that this appeal beallowed, the impugned order be set aside and suit filed by the respondent maybe dismissed by allowing an application filed by the appellants under Order 7Rule 11, CPC. 3. Shri Suyash Tripathi , learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff/respondent submitted that the suit was maintainable under Section 7(1)Explanation (c) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, as it was a suit in respect ofproperty of the respondent and for this purpose no reliefs as are envisaged under Sections 9, 10 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955were required to be sought from the Family Court. It was also submitted thatwhen the suit was filed against the husband and hisfamily members for return of Stridhan , the Family Courtwas having jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit in accordance with law. Hehas placed reliance to a judgment of the Apex Court in K.A. Abdul Jaleel Vs .T.A. Shahida . AIR 2003 SC 2525 , and Para 7 of the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Suprabha Vs . Sivaraman K.K. and another, and submitted that this appeal may be dismissed. 4.To appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, it would be appropriate tostate factual position of the case. Respondent Smt . Neetu Tiwary filed a suit beforethe Family Court, Shahdol for return of Stridhan against the appellants. Appellant No. 1 Om Prakash Tiwary is the husband of Smt . Neetu Tiwary while the appellant No. 2 is the father-in-lawand appellant No. 5 is the mother-in-law. Ramesh Tiwary and Ramayan Tiwary are brother of Om Prakash Tiwary ,while Smt . Sunita Tiwary and Smt . Arti Tiwary are wives of Ramesh Tiwary and Ramayan Tiwary respectively. Theallegations in the plaint are that certain properties of which details aregiven in the plaint are her Stridhan which are inpossession of the appellants and a decree be passed against the appellants forrefund of the Stridhan or to pay Rs .11,09,241/- in lieu thereof. The suit was contested by the appellants by filingwritten statement. They had also filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11,CPC to the effect that the suit was not maintainable in the Family Court as no reliefs , as are envisaged in Sections 9, 10 and 13 of theHindu Marriage Act, 1955 were claimed and until unless such reliefs are claimed, the property could not have been refunded to the plaintiff underSection 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It was submitted that claiming ofmain relief as are envisaged under Sections 9, 10 and 13 of the Hindu MarriageAct, 1955 is sine qua non for filing of such suit and until unless such suit isfiled the plaintiff was not entitled to claim refund of the Stridhan . 5.To appreciate this contention the relevant provisions deserve to be examined.Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides for a decree of restitutionof conjugal rights, Section 10 provides for a decree of judicial separation andSection 13 provides for a decree of divorce. 5.To appreciate this contention the relevant provisions deserve to be examined.Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides for a decree of restitutionof conjugal rights, Section 10 provides for a decree of judicial separation andSection 13 provides for a decree of divorce. Sections 11 and 12 of the HinduMarriage Act, 1955, define void and void able marriages. Section 27 of theHindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides disposal of property of the parties by theCourt dealing with the petition under Sections 9, 10 and 13 of the HinduMarriage Act, 1955. The Court has power to make such provisions in the decreeas it deems just and proper with respect to any property presented, at or aboutthe time of marriage, which may belong jointly to both the husband and thewife. Meaning thereby that a Court hearing a matter underSections 9, 10 and 13 has power to pass an order in respect of the propertybelonging to the parties to a marriage by way of disposal of the property atthe time of decision of the suit. Section7 (1) (a) and Explanation (c) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 provides as under : - ""1. Jurisdiction. - (1) Subject to the otherprovisions of this Act, a Family Court shall - (a)have and exercise all the jurisdiction exercisable by any District Court or anySubordinate Civil Court under any law for the time being in force in respect ofsuits and proceedings of the nature referred to in the explanation; and Explanation : - The suits and proceedings referred to inthis sub-section are suits and proceedings of the following nature, namely :- (c) a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriagewith respect to the property of the parties or of either of them." Sections8 and 20 of the Family Courts Act deserves to be referred which read as under : - "8. Exclusion of jurisdiction and pending proceedings. Exclusion of jurisdiction and pending proceedings. - Where a Family Court has been established for any area,- (a)no District Court or any Subordinate Civil Court referred to in sub-section (1)of Section 7 shall, in relation to such area, have or exercise any jurisdictionin respect of any suit or proceeding of the nature referred to in theExplanation to that sub-section; (b)no Magistrate shall, in relation to such area, have or exercise anyjurisdiction or power under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(2 of 1974); (c)every suit or proceeding of the nature referred to in the Explanation tosub-section (1) of Section 7 and every proceeding under Chapter IX of the Codeof Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),- ( i ) which is pending immediately before the establishment ofsuch Family Court before any District Court or Subordinate Court referred to inthat sub-section or, as the case may be, before any Magistrate under the saidCode; and (ii)which would have been required to be instituted or taken before or by suchFamily Court if, before the date on which such suit or proceeding wasinstituted or taken, this Act had come into force and such Family Court hadbeen established, shall stand transferred to such Family Court on the date onwhich it is established." "20.Act to have overriding effect. - The provisions of this Act shall have effectnotwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law forthe time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any lawother than this Act." 6.Section 7 (1) provides that the Family Court shall have and exercise all thejurisdiction exercisable by any District Court or any Subordinate Civil Courtunder any law for the time being in force in respect to suits and proceedingsof the nature referred to in the Explanation. The Explanation (c) provides thata suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage with respect to theproperty of the parties or of either of them shall be tried by the FamilyCourt. The Explanation (c) provides thata suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage with respect to theproperty of the parties or of either of them shall be tried by the FamilyCourt. Though a Court dealing with petition under Sections 9, 10 and 13 of theHindu Marriage Act, 1955 have power under Section 27 to deal with suchproperty, but, for refund of Stridhan an independentcivil suit could have been filed by the respondent before the Ordinary Court ofjurisdiction and jurisdiction could have been as per the valuation of theproperty, meaning thereby as per the valuation put by the respondent for refundof the property amounting to Rs . 11,09,241/- aDistrict Court was having jurisdiction to entertain the suit of the respondent.It is not disputed before us that for refund of Stridhan ,the respondent was entitled to file a suit before the Ordinary Civil Court . When an Ordinary Civil Court could have examined the claim of therespondent then in the light of the provisions as contained in Section 8 readwith Section 7 we have to examine whether the Family Court has exclusivejurisdiction or respondent could have filed the suit before the Ordinary Courtof civil jurisdiction. Section 8 (a) specifically provides that no DistrictCourt or any Subordinate Court referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 7shall, in relation to such area, where a Family Court has been established,have or exercise any jurisdiction in respect of any suit or proceeding of thenature referred to in the Explanation to that sub-section and the Family Courtshall have the exclusive jurisdiction in the matter. Meaning thereby thatSection 8 of the Family Court emphasizes the nature of the suit which have been explained in sub-section (1) to Section 7. When weread Explanation (c), it is apparent that the Explanation provides in respectof a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage with respect to theproperty of the parties or of either of them. Meaning therebythat either of the parties to a marriage can file a suit or proceeding beforethe Family Court in respect of property of the parties. As per thisExplanation, if the nature of the suit is in respect of the property of theparties to the marriage then under sub-section (a) to Section 8, the FamilyCourt was having jurisdiction to consider such suit. As per thisExplanation, if the nature of the suit is in respect of the property of theparties to the marriage then under sub-section (a) to Section 8, the FamilyCourt was having jurisdiction to consider such suit. So for the suit filed bythe respondent, under subsection (1) (a) of Section 8, the Family Court washaving exclusive jurisdiction, in respect of the area for which the Court wasestablished. 7.Now we have to consider next contention of appellants that whether the suitcould have been filed between the parties to a marriage alone or not. For thispurpose when we examine the contents of the plaint, we find that it was suitfiled by the respondent against all the appellants claiming that her Stridhan properties are with the appellants, meaningthereby that the Court has to consider whether the properties are in possessionof the appellants or either of them and in case Family Court arrives at afinding that the appellant No. 1 or any of other appellants or all theappellants are in possession of the properties of the respondent then theFamily Court could have passed a decree against all or any of them. For anexample, if the plaintiff claims properties against her husband and fromin-laws, then whether she is required to file two suits; one against herhusband and another against her in-laws, meaning thereby that she has to splitcause of action in this regard and for filing of suit against her husband shehas to go before the Family Court under Sections 7 and 8 of the Family CourtsAct, 1984 and against her in-laws she is required to file suit before theOrdinary Court of civil jurisdiction. It will be contrary to the provisions ascontained in Order 1 Rule 3 and Order 2 Rule 2, CPC. The aforesaid provisionsspecifically provide that the plaintiff cannot split cause of action and has toinclude the whole of the claim in one suit, meaning thereby the mandate ofOrder 2 Rule 2 read with Order 1 Rule 3 shall come into play in splitting thesuit, the plaintiff is bound to file one suit against her husband and againsther in-laws in such a situation when the suit is filed for recovery of Stridhan . Now,we have to examine whether it is to be filed before the Family Court or beforethe Ordinary Civil Court .Sections 7 and 8 specifically provide that the Family Courts shall haveexclusive jurisdiction in respect of the suit of the nature under sub-section(1) to Section 7. In this provision, the emphasis is of the nature of suit andnot the parties. When the suit is filed with respect of properties of theparties, who are parties to a marriage, the exclusive jurisdiction will be ofFamily Court. Meaning thereby that the Family Court shallhave jurisdiction in respect of the property of the parties or of either ofthem. The suit filed by the respondents was definitely maintainablebefore the Family Court. 8.The Apex Court in K.A. Abdul Jaleel Vs. T.A. Shahida (supra), considered this aspect, and held thatwords "suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage" cannotbe read as ''parties to subsisting marriage". Suit relating to property ofspouse/spouses where divorce does not take place the Apex Court held that thestatement of Objects Reasons, clearly go to show that the jurisdiction of theFamily Court extends, inter alia , in relation toproperties of spouses of either of them which would clearly mean that theproperties claimed by the parties thereto as a spouse of other: irrespective of the claim whether property is claimed during thesubsistence of a marriage or otherwise. The jurisdiction of a Court createdspecifically for resolution of disputes of certain kinds should be construedliberally. The words "a suit or proceeding between the parties to amarriage" cannot therefore, be read as parties to a subsisting marriage.The restricted meaning if ascribed to Explanation (c) appended to Section 7 ofthe Act would frustrate the object wherefore the Family Court were set up. Thedispute over properties between parties to a marriage cannot be confined to theparties to a subsisting marriage. 9.In Suprabha Vs. Sivaraman K.K. and another (supra), a Division Bench of Kerala High Court considering the provision as contained in Section 7, Explanation (c)held that the suit or proceeding must be between husband and wife with respectto property of parties or either of them and does not mean include all thosewho are interested in welfare of couple or those who take part to marriageceremony. The Kerala High Court was considering thecase when either husband or wife is not alive and suit is filed against parentsof either of them, and in that perspective it was held that it cannot be saidit is a suit or proceeding between parties to marriage, while the factualposition in the present case is entirely different. It is a suit between theplaintiff Smt . Neetu Tiwary and against her husband Om Prakash Tiwary along withhis family members. 10. In P. Srihari Vs. Kum . P. Sukunda and another, AIR2001 Andhra Pradesh 169, a Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court wasconsidering the disputes between the brothers, sisters, mother, father inrespect of property and considering the aforesaid, it was her that such a suitwas not maintainable before the Family Court while the present case is ondifferent footing. 11.In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court and by interpreting theprovisions as contained under Section 7 and 8, there is no iota of doubt thatthe Family Court was having jurisdiction to consider the suit of the respondentin respect of return of Stridhan , and she was notrequired to file two separate suits, one against her husband in Family Courtand against in-laws before the Ordinary Civil Court. When a suit is filedagainst the husband and other family members for return of Stridhan then the claim could not have been split up by the plaintiff and all thepersons against whom the plaintiff is claiming the return of Stridlum could have been sued in one suit and the FamilyCourt was having jurisdiction to deckle the suit even against the in-laws ofthe plaintiff, meaning thereby the suit which has been filed for return of Stridhan against the husband and his family members is maintainablebefore the Family Court. 12.So far as the judgment of Punjab & Haryana HighCourt, relied by the appellants in Vinod Kumar Sethand others Vs. State of Punjab (supra), is concerned, in the aforesaid case,the Full Bench was considering a case under Section 406 of the IPC and heldthat what constitute Stridhan is to be decided by theFamily Court. At this juncture, we are not considering the case on merits, butare deciding the objections raised by the defendants in respect of jurisdictionof the Family Court. State of Punjab (supra), is concerned, in the aforesaid case,the Full Bench was considering a case under Section 406 of the IPC and heldthat what constitute Stridhan is to be decided by theFamily Court. At this juncture, we are not considering the case on merits, butare deciding the objections raised by the defendants in respect of jurisdictionof the Family Court. Whether the property claimed by the respondent fallswithin the purview of Stridhan or the respondent isentitled for the aforesaid property, these questions are yet to be decided bythe Family Court after hearing both the parties and in this regard it would notbe appropriate for this Court to decide the aforesaid facts because these canbe decided only after recording of evidence of the parties. 13.In view of the aforesaid, this appeal is found without merits and is dismissedwith costs. Counsel fee Rs 2,000/-.