JUDGMENT : Shaffique, J. The original petition is filed challenging Ext.P3 order dated 7/11/2015 in IA No.14/2013 in OP No. 90/2013 of the Family Court, Ottapalam. The 1st respondent in the original petition is the petitioner herein. The original petition was filed for a declaration that sale deed no.4181/2002 executed by the 1st respondent herein is a sham document created as security for an amount of Rs.50,000/- borrowed by the 1st respondent herein and it has not come into force and that the petitioner has no right, title or possession over the property and still remains with the co-ownership of the respondents. 2. The short facts involved would indicate that the respondents herein are husband and wife. The husband filed the original petition against the petitioner herein and his wife invoking Section 7 of the Family Courts Act. It is contended that the husband purchased the petition schedule property in the name of his wife as per document No.2517/1985 of SRO Mannarkkad. According to him, entire sale consideration was paid by him. His wife's father made him to believe that for the purpose of getting housing loan, the property could be purchased in both their names. Accordingly, half right of the property was purchased in the name of husband and half right in the wife's name. He thereafter constructed a building in the property and since 1998, his wife and children are residing. He suffered loss in his business and he demanded Rs.50,000/- from the petitioner as loan and executed a sale deed as document No.4181/2002 assigning his half share over the property as a sham document and it is contended that the petitioner had agreed to re-convey the property on repayment of the amount borrowed as loan. It is contended that in March, 2012, when he demanded for re-conveyance of the property, after receiving Rs.50,000/- borrowed from him, the petitioner was not willing for the same. At this stage, the original petition is filed. Petitioner herein, who is the first respondent in the original petition, filed IA No.14/2013 challenging the maintainability of the original petition on the ground that the averments in the original petition does not disclose a matrimonial issue which is liable to be considered by the Family Court under Section 7 of the Act. Petitioner herein, who is the first respondent in the original petition, filed IA No.14/2013 challenging the maintainability of the original petition on the ground that the averments in the original petition does not disclose a matrimonial issue which is liable to be considered by the Family Court under Section 7 of the Act. The Family Court after an elaborate consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case observed that it has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is challenging the said order, that this original petition is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that merely because the 1st respondent's wife has been impleaded in the case does not indicate that the dispute is with reference to any matrimonial type. The original petition is filed seeking for a declaration that sale deed No.4181/2002 of SRO, Mannarkkad is a sham document. His wife is not a party in the document. As per Explanation (c) to Section 7 of the Act, the property disputes between a married couple alone is liable to be considered by the Family Court. It is contended that when Explanation (c) to Section 7(1) does not apply, the Family Court committed serious error of law in placing reliance upon Explanation (d) in Section 7(1) and arriving at the said finding. 4. The Family Court in fact placed reliance upon the following judgments in order to arrive at a finding that Explanation (d) to Section 7(1) applies in the facts. (i) Anilkumar K.B. v Sheela N.S. (2011 (3) KHC 942). (ii) Devaki Antharjanam v. Narayanan Namboodiri (2006 KHC 655) (iii) Vasumathi N. and another v. Valsan and others (2011 (3) KHC 573) 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel that in so far as the petitioner claims that the document executed by him in favour of the 1st respondent is sham and declaration is sought for in regard to that property alone where his half right is involved, it has nothing to do with the marital arrangement between the respondents 1 and 2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supported the view taken by the Family Court and it placed reliance upon the judgment in Vasumathi (supra), Anil Kumar (supra), Abdul Jaleel v. Shahida (2003 (2) KLT 403, (SC) and Leby Issac v. Leena M. Ninan (2005 (3) KLT 665). 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supported the view taken by the Family Court and it placed reliance upon the judgment in Vasumathi (supra), Anil Kumar (supra), Abdul Jaleel v. Shahida (2003 (2) KLT 403, (SC) and Leby Issac v. Leena M. Ninan (2005 (3) KLT 665). 6. The only question to be considered in the present original petition is whether the Explanation (d) to Section 7 applies to the fact situation. The explanation reads as under:- "(d) a suit or proceeding for an order or injunction in circumstances arising out of a marital relationship." The establishment of Family Courts Act is to secure speedy settlement of disputes relating to marriage and family affairs and for matters connected thereto. In order to understand whether the petition is maintainable or not, the averments in the petition has to be considered. As far as the Explanation appended to Section 7 is concerned, in respect of property disputes between the couple, Explanation (c) applies where it has to be a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage with respect to the property of the parties or either of them. This provision had been given a wider interpretation by the Apex Court in Abdul Jaleel (supra) and it is held by the Apex Court at para 10 as under:- "10. The Family Courts Act was enacted to provide for the establishment of Family Courts with a view to promote conciliation in, and secure speedy settlement of, disputes relating to marriage and family affairs and for matters connected therewith. From a perusal of the Statement of Objects and Reasons, it appears that the said Act, inter alia, seeks to exclusively provide within the jurisdiction of the Family Courts the matters relating to the property of the spouses or either of them. S.7 of the Act provides for the jurisdiction of the Family Court in respect of suits and proceedings as referred to in the Explanation appended thereto. Explanation (c) appended to S.7 refers to a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage with respect to the property of the parties or of either of them." That was a case in which a question had arisen whether divorced parties are entitled to approach the Family Court claiming right in respect of the property. Explanation (c) appended to S.7 refers to a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage with respect to the property of the parties or of either of them." That was a case in which a question had arisen whether divorced parties are entitled to approach the Family Court claiming right in respect of the property. The Apex Court held that the jurisdiction of a Court specially created for resolution of dispute of certain kinds should be construed liberally and a restricted meaning to Explanation (c) appended to Section 7 would frustrate the object for which the Family Courts were set up. At any rate, in this case, none has a contention that Explanation (c) appended to Section 7 applies. Family Court had referred to Explanation (d) as extracted above. 7. In Anil Kumar (supra), the Division Bench was considering a case where a claim was made by the wife against her husband's brother for return of money on the ground that she had repaid the amount payable in a chitty transaction where she stood as a surety for her husband's brother. In such an instance, it was held that since the amount due arose in circumstances arising out of a marital relationship, it is a dispute coming under explanation (d) to section 7(1) and the Family Court has jurisdiction. This judgment has no application to the facts of the present case. In Vasumathi (supra), the dispute was with reference to a property transferred by the husband in favour of a near relative. The wife claimed right in respect of the said property. In such circumstances, the Division Bench held that it could either fall under Explanation (c) or (d) of Section 7. In Leby Issac (supra), the Division Bench was considering a question whether a suit filed by husband for recovery of money as compensation and damages from his wife and father-in-law was maintainable. It was held that such a claim was arising out of the circumstances in a marital relationship and therefore maintainable. This judgment also has no application to the facts of the case. 8. It is needless to state that one has to look into the averments in the petition. The only contention urged by the 1st respondent, who is the petitioner before the Family Court, is that the document executed by him in favour of the petitioner herein is sham and nominal. 8. It is needless to state that one has to look into the averments in the petition. The only contention urged by the 1st respondent, who is the petitioner before the Family Court, is that the document executed by him in favour of the petitioner herein is sham and nominal. The averments do not indicate that it has anything to do with the marital relationship between the respondents herein. The document cannot be treated as a sale between the parties to marriage. The parties to marriage were having equal share and half share of the husband was assigned on the understanding that it is a loan transaction and as a security, on the understanding that the property will be re-conveyed on payment of the amount. If that be the case, it will not fall under Explanation (c) to Section 7 as well. Under such circumstances, we are of the view that the Family Court erred in adjudicating that the petition was maintainable before the Family Court. None of the judgments relied upon have application to the facts of the case. In the said circumstances, this original petition is allowed as under:- (i) The order dated 7/11/2015 in IA No. 14/2013 in OP No. 90/13 (Ext.P3) is set aside. (ii) IA No.14/2013 is allowed and the original petition is found to be not maintainable. Accordingly OP No.90/13 is dismissed.