JUDGMENT : R.DEVDAS, J. The appellants, the legal representatives of Smt.Narasamma who had filed O.S.No.28/2022 before the Principal Judge, Family Court at Raichur, are before this Court aggrieved of the impugned order dated 25.07.2023 passed by the Family Court returning the plaint to the plaintiff on the ground that the suit filed before the Family Court is not maintainable in law. 2. A brief background is required to be stated as to how such a suit came to be filed before the Family Court. Smt.Narsamma appears to have approached the revenue authorities seeking mutation and entry of her name in respect of landed properties which were earlier standing in the name of her husband late Sri.G.Narasanna. The revenue authorities entertained the claim of Smt.Narsamma and set aside the mutation dated 05.02.2001 which was made in favour of the respondent herein. Feeling aggrieved the respondent challenged the order of the revenue authorities before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner allowed the revision and set aside the order passed by the revenue authorities thereby ensuring that the revenue entries made in favour of the respondent continue. The matter came before this Court and thereafter, the respondent took up the matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court by order dated 21.11.2022 in Civil Appeal No.8654/2022 arising out of SLP (C) No.18779/2022 held that the recourse adopted by Smt.Narasamma in approaching the revenue authorities is an exercise in futility as neither the Deputy Commissioner nor any other revenue authority is competent to determine the right of the parties as to the legal status. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that such controversy could be decided by a civil Court only. Smt.Narasamma submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that she will file a civil suit seeking declaration of her marital status. Accordingly, the matter was disposed of while directing that till the disposal of the civil suit, the respondent shall neither alienate nor create any encumbrance upon the suit property. Thereafter, the suit in O.S.No.28/2022 was filed by Smt.Narasamma before the Principal Bench, Family Court at Raichur. Issues were framed and issue No.5 was taken up as preliminary issue which is, “Whether this suit is maintainable under law in this Family Court?” 3. Thereafter, the suit in O.S.No.28/2022 was filed by Smt.Narasamma before the Principal Bench, Family Court at Raichur. Issues were framed and issue No.5 was taken up as preliminary issue which is, “Whether this suit is maintainable under law in this Family Court?” 3. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raichur, while considering the arguments made on behalf of the plaintiff and the defendant and on consideration of a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.Kasthuri and Others vs. M.Kasthuri and Others reported in (2018)5 SCC 353 held that principally the dispute is amongst plaintiff and defendant who claim to be the legally wedded wives of late Sri.G.Narasanna to whom Survey No.184/A (Old Sy.No.184) measuring 8 acres 24 guntas situated at Raichur belonged and therefore, the dispute involved in the suit is not so simple as submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff to claim relief of declaration that the plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of late Sri.G.Narasanna without claiming the consequential reliefs in respect of the landed properties involved between the parties. It was held that such dispute involved in the suit cannot be decided by a Family Court by adopting summary procedure as contemplated in the Family Courts Act, 1984. Accordingly, the plaint was ordered to be returned to the plaintiff to enable the plaintiff to present the same before a Civil Court having competent jurisdiction. 4. After the order was passed by the Family Court, Smt.Narasamma died and therefore, her legal heirs have filed this appeal, along with an application seeking leave of the Court to permit them to prosecute the appeal. 5. Having regard to the facts narrated hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that the application filed by the appellants seeking leave of the Court to prosecute the appeal is required to be allowed and it is accordingly, allowed. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants places reliance on the judgment of two judges bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Having regard to the facts narrated hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that the application filed by the appellants seeking leave of the Court to prosecute the appeal is required to be allowed and it is accordingly, allowed. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants places reliance on the judgment of two judges bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is submitted that a three judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.A.Abdul Jaleel vs.T.A.Shahida reported in (2003)4 SCC 166 while considering the scope and jurisdiction conferred on the Family Courts under the Family Courts Act, 1984 held that 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, by adopting an approach radically different from that adopted in ordinary civil proceedings. The said Act was enacted despite the fact that Order 32-A of CPC was inserted by Amendment Act of 1976 which could not bring about any desired results. It was therefore held that the wording “disputes relating to marriage and family affairs and for matters connected therewith” must be given a broad construction. 7. It was held that the statement of objects and reasons clearly show that the jurisdiction of the Family Court extends, inter alia, in relation to properties of spouses or of either of them which would clearly mean that the properties claimed by properties thereto as a spouse of the other; irrespective of the claim whether the property is claimed during the subsistence of marriage or otherwise, can be entertained. It was held that to read the words, “a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage” to mean “as parties to a subsisting marriage” would lead to miscarriage of justice. Further, it was held that it is a well settled principle of law that the jurisdiction of a Court created specially for resolution of disputes of certain kinds should be construed liberally. The restricted meaning if ascribed to Explanation (c) appended to Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, it would frustrate the object wherefor the family Courts were set up. 8. The restricted meaning if ascribed to Explanation (c) appended to Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, it would frustrate the object wherefor the family Courts were set up. 8. It was also pointed out that in the case of Balram Yadav vs. Fulmaniya Yadav reported in (2016) 13 SCC 308 , a two judges bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering Sections 7 and 8 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 held that under Section 7(1) Explanation (b), a suit or proceeding for a declaration as to the validity of both the marriage and matrimonial status of a person is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court since under Section 8, all those jurisdiction covered under Section 7 are excluded from the purview of jurisdiction of civil courts. It was further held that in case there is a dispute regarding the matrimonial status of any person, a declaration in that regard can be sought only before the Family Court. It makes no difference as to whether it is an affirmative relief or a negative relief. This observation was made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court since the plaintiff had sought for a declaration before the Family Court that the respondent was not the legally wedded wife. It was further held that what is important is the declaration regarding matrimonial status. It was also held that Section 20 also endorses the view which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken since the Family Court Act, 1984 has an overriding effect on other laws. 9. Although learned counsel for respondent faintly sought to support the impugned order which is mainly based on another decision of two judges bench in the case of R.Kasturi (supra), the learned counsel accepted the fact that in the said judgment the provisions of Sections 7 and 8 of the Family Courts Act were not considered. However, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the prayer in the plaint is seeking a declaration that the plaintiff is the wife of deceased Sri.G.Narasanna S/o Hanmanth and no prayer was made insofar as the landed properties belonging to late Sri.G.Narasanna is concerned. However, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the prayer in the plaint is seeking a declaration that the plaintiff is the wife of deceased Sri.G.Narasanna S/o Hanmanth and no prayer was made insofar as the landed properties belonging to late Sri.G.Narasanna is concerned. Nevertheless, proceeding in the suit, the Family Court framed fresh issue even in respect of the landed properties and it would satisfy the requirement of the defendant to go into the question as to the title over the landed properties as provided in clause (c) of the Explanation to Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. 10. In view of the above, having regard to the judgment of three judges in the case of K.A.Abdul Jaleel (supra) and the decision in the case of Balram Yadav (supra) which considered the scope and jurisdiction of the family Courts having regard to the provisions contained in the Family Courts Act, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained. We should notice that in Balram Yadav (supra), the prayer was a declaration regarding marital status between two ladies claiming to be the legally wedded wife of a certain person, which is also the prayer of the plaintiff in the present case. There is a clear bar in Section 8 of the Family Courts Act, insofar as seeking declaration of marital status, excluding the jurisdiction of the civil Court and confining the jurisdiction only with family Court. As held in Balram Yadav (supra), Section 20 also endorses the view that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken since the Family Courts Act, 1984 has an overriding effect on other laws. 11. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 25.07.2023 passed in O.S.No.28/2022 is hereby quashed and set aside. The original suit in O.S.No.28/2022 is restored to the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court at Raichur. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, shall proceed from the stage when which the plaint was returned to the plaintiff, consider the matter and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. 12. Ordered accordingly.