-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8277 OF 2009 Dr. Ranjit Mukherjee. ..Petitioner. Versus Dr. Smita Mukherjee. ..Respondent. Mr. S. N. Vaishnawa i/b M/s. N. N. Vaishnawa & Co., for the petitioner. Mr. R. T. Lalwani for the respondent. Coram : R. V. MORE, J. Date : June 28, 2010. P. C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. The petitioner challenges the legality and propriety of the order dated 7th July 2009 passed below Exhibit-51 by the Principal Judge, Family Court at Mumbai in Petition No. B-27/2008. The petitioner – husband is the original respondent and the respondent – wife is the original petitioner. The respondent filed Petition No.B-27/2008 under Family Courts Act, 1984 for injunction restraining the petitioner from dispossessing or creating hurdles in her possession of Dr..Mukherjee’s Eye Clinic, Nav Bhartiya Bhavan, 10th Road, Next to Old Municipal Office, Chembur, Mumbai – 400 071. The respondent also claimed relief allowing her to exclusive use of the above said premises. Incidental prayers are also sought. 3. The petitioner filed an application at Exhibit-51 under section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 taking preliminary objection to the jurisdiction -: 2 :- of the Court on the ground that the suit simplicitor for injunction will not lie in the Family Court in the absence of any relief arising out of matrimonial relationship. The Family Court framed two preliminary issue, namely, “(1) Whether the respondent proves that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the petition as stated in para of the written statement ? (2) Whether the respondent proves that the present petition is not maintainable as stated by him in Exhibit-51 ?” 5. The Family Court after hearing learned counsel for the respective parties, held that it has jurisdiction and consequently objection of the petitioner was overruled and the application at Exhibit-51 was rejected. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, I do not find any merit in the petition. Section 7 of the Family Court, 1984 deals with the jurisdiction of the Family Court. The relevant provisions of Section 7 of the Family Court reads 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) ..... Explanation.- The suits and proceedings referred to in sub-section are suits and proceedings of the following nature, namely : - (a) .... (b) .... (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).....” -: 3 :- 7. Thus, the suit or proceeding between parties to the marriage with respect to the properties of the parties or of either of them is maintainable in the Family Court. The same view is taken by the Court below. I do not find any merit in the petition so as to enable me to interfere with the impugned order in my writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is therefore dismissed. (R.V. MORE, J.)