JUDGMENT : Devan Ramachandran, J. The singular germane issue in this case is whether O.P.No.1512/2023 before the learned Family Court, N.Paravur (earlier filed as O.P.No.1016/2018 before the learned Family Court, Ernakulam) is maintainable, within the ambit of Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (‘Act’, for short). 2. The aforementioned Original Petition was filed by the respondent – husband against his wife and daughter, namely petitioners 1 and 2 respectively, on the allegation that he is the owner of the property in question - though he had purchased it in the name of his wife - expending his own money, through Sale Deed No.2584/1976, of SRO Paravur. He alleges that the property was held by his wife virtually in trust because, the entire consideration for it was paid by him; but that he was shocked in the year 2018, to understand that she had settled it in favour of the 2nd petitioner, through Settlement Deed No.3305/2016 of SRO Paravur. He thus filed the Original Petition before the learned Family Court, seeking that he be declared to be the real owner of the property and that the above mentioned Settlement Deed be set aside. 3. The petitioners resisted the Original Petition by filing I.A.No.2/2023, contending that it is not maintainable before the learned Family Court; and this has culminated in Ext.P4 order against them, which is impugned by them in this Original Petition. 4. Sri.Rajesh Narayan Iyer – learned counsel for the respondent, argued that it can brook no forensic doubt that, under the ambit of Explanation (c) to Section 7(1) of the ‘Act’, any dispute between the spouses would be within the jurisdiction of the learned Family Court to consider. He relied upon two judgments, which are also cited by the learned Family Court, namely Pushpy @ Kochuthressia and Others v. Antony and Others [2019(1)KHC 85(DB)] and Abdul Jaleel v. Shahida [2003(2)KLT 403], to fortify his contention that the Original Petition is maintainable. He thus prayed that this petition be dismissed. 5. However, Sri.K.Sujai Sathian – learned counsel for the petitioners, asserted that Ext.P4 has been issued by the learned Family Court without proper consideration of the relevant facts. He pointed out that, once the property had been settled by the 1st petitioner in favour of the 2nd petitioner - namely her daughter, then the learned Family Court lost jurisdiction to consider any claim over the same. He pointed out that, once the property had been settled by the 1st petitioner in favour of the 2nd petitioner - namely her daughter, then the learned Family Court lost jurisdiction to consider any claim over the same. He contended that the present Original Petition is a cause in disguise, initiated by the respondent against his daughter, who is now the owner of the property; and therefore, that the Original Petition is not maintainable. 6. We have examined Ext.P4 on the touchstone of the rival contentions, as also the provisions of Explanation (c) to Section 7(1) of the ‘Act’. For ease of reading, we extract the said Section as under: 7. Jurisdiction.—(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a Family Court shall— (a) have and exercise all the jurisdiction exercisable by any District Court or any subordinate Civil Court under any law for the time being in force in respect of suits and proceedings of the nature referred to in the Explanation; and (b) be deemed, for the purposes of exercising such jurisdiction under such law, to be a District Court or, as the case may be, such subordinate Civil Court for the area to which the jurisdiction of the Family Court extends. Explanation.— The suits and proceedings referred to in this sub-section are suits and proceedings of the following nature, namely:— (a) a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage for a decree of nullity of marriage (declaring the marriage to be null and void or, as the case may be, annulling the marriage) or restitution of conjugal rights or judicial separation or dissolution of marriage; (b) a suit or proceeding for a declaration as to the validity of a marriage or as to the matrimonial status of any person; (c) a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage with respect to the property of the parties or of either of them; (d) a suit or proceeding for an order or injunction in circumstances arising out of a marital relationship; (e) a suit or proceeding for a declaration as to the legitimacy of any person; (f) a suit or proceeding for maintenance; (g) a suit or proceeding in relation to the guardianship of the person or the custody of, or access to, any minor. 7. 7. It is without doubt and being admitted by the parties, the 1st petitioner and the respondent are still husband and wife; and that, going by the allegations in the Original Petition before the learned Family Court, the latter alleges that the property in question was purchased by him in the name of the former, but that she is only a name lender because she did not honour any part of the consideration for the same. He further says that he was shocked to understand that his wife has settled the property in favour of the 2nd petitioner; and that he, therefore, had no other option, but to have the Settlement Deed in favour of the said respondent set aside, after seeking a declaration that he is the real owner of the property. 8. It is thus obvious that the disputes as impelled before us - and projected before the learned Family Court - are between the husband and wife; and that the cause of action is underpinned on the factum of the latter having settled the property in favour of the 2nd petitioner. Merely because a subsequent settlement has been done by the wife, the right of the respondent to impel a cause before the learned Family Court is not extinguished, particularly within the purlieus of the afore extracted Explanation of Section 7(1) of the ‘Act’. 9. We, therefore, cannot find error in the impugned order of the learned Family Court. 10. We are persuaded to the afore opinion also because of the two cited judgments, which declare the law, without leaving room for doubt, that any dispute between the parties to a matrimony is maintainable before the Family Court; and that this is without reference to the state of such matrimony or its attributes. 11. That said, every other allegation between the parties is in the realm of factual findings and evaluation; and we cannot, therefore, enter into the same, however emphatically their learned counsel may assert before us. In the afore circumstances, we dismiss this Original Petition, confirming Ext.P4; however, clarifying that we have not entered into the merits of any of the rival contentions and that all of them are left open to be decided by the learned Family Court in its proper perspective, after affording necessary opportunities to both sides.