JUDGMENT : A.J. Desai, J. 1. Rule. Mr. M.B. Gandhi, learned advocate appearing for the respondents waives service of rule. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal today itself. 2. By way of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside order dated 23.11.2016 passed by learned Principal District Judge, Gandhinagar in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2016. 3. The case put forward by the petitioner is as under :- 3.1 The petitioner got married to one Dashrathbhai Vithalbhai Patel on 6.7.1995 as per rituals and out of the wedlock, the petitioner delivered a girl child on 17.2.1997. Due to harassment by her husband, the petitioner lodged a complaint against her husband with Ambawadi Police Station which was numbered as Criminal Case No. 1450 of 1998. Thereafter, as per the customs prevailing amongst the parties, they agreed for mutual consent and a customary divorce took place between them on 29.12.1998. 3.2 Thereafter, the petitioner came into contact with Dashrathbhai Gopalbhai Patel who was a widower and working as Assistant Teacher in Saraswati Vidyalaya at Dehgam. Ultimately, the petitioner got married to Dashrathbhai Gopalbhai Patel on 4.11.2002 as per the customs in presence of their relatives. The said Dashrathbhai Gopalbhai Patel had two children, namely, Adit and Sweta - respondents herein, through his first marriage with deceased Laxmiben Patel. Since the petitioner was working as Assistant Publication Officer in Vocational Guidance at Ahmedabad, she was allotted quarter at Gandhinagar where they were residing with her husband Dashrath Gopalbhai Patel. The petitioner and her husband Dashrath Gopalbhai Patel had joint Bank account and had insurance policies in which the petitioner was shown as nominee being his wife. The petitioner also availed Leave Travel Concession in the years 2008 and 2012. Further, in the service book of Dashrath Gopalbhai Patel, name of the petitioner was mentioned as his nominee and photograph of the petitioner was also shown as his lawful wedded wife. Even name of father of the daughter of the petitioner in the school register was corrected and it was mentioned as Dashrath Gopalbhai Patel. 3.3 Unfortunately, Dashrath Gopalbhai Patel suffered heart attack on 31.5.2012 and he passed away on 1.6.2012. Even name of father of the daughter of the petitioner in the school register was corrected and it was mentioned as Dashrath Gopalbhai Patel. 3.3 Unfortunately, Dashrath Gopalbhai Patel suffered heart attack on 31.5.2012 and he passed away on 1.6.2012. Since the deceased had left movable and immovable properties, dispute arose between the present petitioner and the respondents herein under the apprehension that the retiral benefits of deceased Dashrath Gopalbhai Patel is likely to be received by the step children and hence, the petitioner filed a writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 16310 of 2012 before this Court and prayed for several reliefs. The said petition came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 16.1.2014 observing therein that there are disputed questions of fact with regard to the marriage and, therefore, the Court would not like to examine the same. The said decision was challenged by the petitioner by filing Letters Patent Appeal No. 94 of 2014 which also came to be dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.1.2014. However, while disposing of the writ petition as well as Letters Patent Appeal, this Court permitted the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings with regard to the disputed properties. 3.4 Subsequent thereto, the petitioner filed Regular Civil Suit No. 89 of 2014 in the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar and prayed for the following reliefs :- "(A) Declare that the plaintiff is widow of Dashrath Gopalbhai Patel; (B) declare that the plaintiff is entitled being the widow of deceased Dashrath Gopalbhai Patel for all retiral benefits; (C) restrain the defendants from taking any benefits from the movable and immovable properties of her deceased husband; (D) if any benefits are availed by the defendants, the same shall be paid to her;" 3.5 The petitioner also filed an application Exh. 5 under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') and prayed for interim relief restraining the defendants from collecting any retiral benefits of her late husband from the concerned authorities. 3.6 The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar after hearing the parties partly allowed application Exh. 5 vide order dated 8.1.2016 and directed the defendants - respondents herein to maintain status-quo with respect to the movable property of deceased Dashrath Gopalbhai Patel. 3.6 The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar after hearing the parties partly allowed application Exh. 5 vide order dated 8.1.2016 and directed the defendants - respondents herein to maintain status-quo with respect to the movable property of deceased Dashrath Gopalbhai Patel. 3.7 Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondents preferred Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3 of 2016 under Order XLIII, Rule 1(r) of the Code before the learned Principal District Judge, Gandhinagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Court'). During the pendency of the said appeal, the petitioner herein preferred an application Exh. 18 and declared that pursuant to the query raised, the petitioner is of the opinion that Family Court shall have jurisdiction to decide the issues between the parties. Therefore, appropriate order may be passed. Relying upon the said purshish, the learned Appellate Court passed the impugned order on 23.11.2016 by observing that prima facie, the disputes between the parties suggest that Civil Court would not have jurisdiction and as per Section 7 (1) (c) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the concerned Family Court would have jurisdiction to deal with the issues. Hence, by the impugned order, the appeal was allowed and the order of the learned Trial Court below application Exh. 5 was quashed and set aside. 3.8 The petitioner having realized that purshish Exh. 18 was submitted under some misconception that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the issues and only Family Court has jurisdiction, the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred on the ground that the disputes between the parties are of purely civil in nature and Family Court has no jurisdiction and the party cannot confer jurisdiction to such a Court which has no power to deal with the case. Hence this petition. 4. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, the respondents have appeared through learned advocate Mr. M.B. Gandhi and opposed grant of any reliefs as prayed for in the petition. 5. Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Vidhi J. Bhatt appearing for the petitioner would submit that considering the prayers made in the suit, only the Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the issues between the parties. M.B. Gandhi and opposed grant of any reliefs as prayed for in the petition. 5. Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Vidhi J. Bhatt appearing for the petitioner would submit that considering the prayers made in the suit, only the Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the issues between the parties. It is the case of the petitioner that she is a legally wedded wife and step-mother of the respondents who have denied the existence of marriage. Since from the beginning in the writ petition filed before this Court, the respondents have raised questions about the validity of the marriage between the petitioner and Dashrath Gopalbhai Patel. Hence, the suit was filed and accordingly prayers were made in the suit. He would submit that under misconception of law, purshish Exh. 18 was filed by the petitioner. However, the learned Appellate Court should not have passed the impugned order tentatively arriving at the conclusion that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the issues between the parties and under Section 7 (1) (c) of the Act, only Family Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the issues between the parties. By taking me through the provisions of Section 7 (1) (c) of the Act, he would further submit that dispute is not between the husband and wife and no litigation was ever filed between the petitioner and her late husband. He would further submit that suit or proceedings between the parties to a marriage with respect to the property of the parties or of either of them means dispute between the parties to a marriage. However, there was no proceedings between the petitioner and her late husband. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the decision in the case of Devaki Antharjanam v. Narayanan Namboodiri and another, AIR 2007 KERALA 38 and would submit that Family Court has no jurisdiction to deal with the disputes between the parties. 6. By relying upon another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raghunath Rai Bareja and another v. Punjab National Bank and others, (2007) 2 SCC 230, he would submit that it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that even by consent, jurisdiction cannot be conferred to a particular Court having no power to deal with the case. He, therefore, would submit that even if under any misconception, any purshish is filed, the learned Appellate Court ought not to have passed the impugned order. He, therefore, would submit that the petition may be allowed and the impugned order may be quashed and set aside. 7. On the other hand, Mr. M.B. Gandhi, learned advocate appearing for the respondents has vehemently opposed this petition and submitted that the petitioner herself has filed purshish Exh. 18 and declared that she intends to file appropriate proceedings before the Family Court. Accordingly, the learned Appellate Court has passed the impugned order. Therefore, now she cannot challenge the impugned order on the grounds as prayed for. 8. Even otherwise, Mr. Gandhi would further submit that the petitioner is claiming rights over the properties of the father of the respondents with whom it is claimed by the petitioner that she had married as per custom. He would submit that the properties claimed by the petitioner are of the deceased father of the respondents for which claim has been made by the petitioner on the ground that she had married to him as per custom. By taking me through the prayers made in the suit, he would submit that only Family Court can decide whether the petitioner was married to said Dashrath Gopalbhai Patel or not. He, therefore, would submit that the petition be dismissed. 9. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the impugned order as well as the orders passed by this Court as well as by the learned Trial Court. I have also gone through the observations made by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 16310 of 2012. However, the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 94 of 2014 has observed in paragraph 9 (II) as under :- "(II) It is made clear that observations made by the learned Single Judge about the entitlement of the appellant, original petitioner be treated as, prima-facie, observations and the Forum shall decide the question on its own without being influenced by the observation in light of the evidence led before the Forum." 10. Hence, the said observations would not come in the way of either party. Hence, the said observations would not come in the way of either party. As far as the prayers made by the petitioner in the Regular Civil Suit which are referred herein above, I am of the prima facie opinion that Civil Court would have jurisdiction to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. 11. Section 7 (1) (c) of the Act reads as under :- "7. Jurisdiction - (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a Family Court shall - (a) ........................ (b) ........................ Explanation :- The suits and proceedings referred to in this sub-section are suits and proceedings of the following nature, namely :- (a) ....................... (b) ...................... (c) a suit or proceedings between the parties to a marriage with respect to the property of the parties or of either of them; (d) ...................... (e) ...................... (f) ...................... (g) ...................... " 12. If the language of the aforesaid provisions are perused, the proceedings should be between the parties to the marriage. In the present case, it is an undisputed fact that the proceedings are between a lady who claims to be legally wedded wife of the deceased father of the respondents and respondents who are children of the deceased. I am in agreement with the ratio laid down by the Kerala High Court wherein it has been held that Family Court has jurisdiction with regard to disputed property in the capacity of either husband or wife, otherwise only the Civil Court has jurisdiction to deal with the dispute between the family members. 13. It is a well settled principle of law that even parties by consent cannot confer jurisdiction upon a particular Court having no such jurisdiction. 14. Hence, the present petition requires consideration and the same is allowed. The impugned order dated 23.11.2016 passed by learned Principal District Judge, Gandhinagar in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2016 is hereby quashed and set aside. Misc. Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2016 is hereby revived. The learned Principal District Judge, Gandhinagar is hereby directed to decide Misc. Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2016 on its own merits, without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court or by any order of any Court, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the writ and/or certified copy of this order, whichever is earlier. 15. Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2016 on its own merits, without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court or by any order of any Court, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the writ and/or certified copy of this order, whichever is earlier. 15. Rule is made absolute to the above extent. Petition Allowed