1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.202 OF 2010 Suneel Jugalkishor Singhania .... Applicant Vs. M/s. Technologies Plus Incarporation & Ors. .... Respondents S/Shri Rajiv Patil with Omkar Warange for the Applicant. Shri P.V. Samant for the Respondent. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: JULY 08, 2010 P.C: 1. This revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, rejecting the defendant s application praying that the suit be held to be beyond the jurisdiction of Civil Court and cognizable only by the Family Court in terms of the provisions of Section 7, Explanation C of the Family Court Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant. The parties to the suit are M/s. Technologies Plus Incarporation, which is a proprietary concern of the wife and the 2 defendant is the husband in person. The dispute is in respect to the property which was purchased by the plaintiff i.e., presumably M/s. Technologies Plus Incarporation. The plaintiff states that she executed a Special Power of Attorney in favour of the defendant, appointing the defendant as her Attorney to do specific acts empowered by the said Power, which included the use of the office premises situated in the suit property. By the suit, the plaintiff seeks declaration that the Power of Attorney is cancelled and also further declaration that the registration of business activities of the respondent on the property address of the suit property is void, illegal and invalid and that the defendant has no authority or power to use the suit premises in any manner for any purpose. 3. The applicant filed an application for a preliminary issue to be framed about jurisdiction of the Court based on Explanation C of Section 7 of the Family Court Act, which was contested by the respondent. After hearing the parties, the learned Judge passed the impugned order holding that the parties had not moved the Family Court for any matrimonial dispute between them and therefore it was not 3 necessary to conclude the that the suit was cognizable by Family Court in view of Explanation C to Section 7 of the Family Court Act. 4. The learned trial Judge may not have been right in concluding that because the parties have not gone to the Family Court for adjudication of their matrimonial dispute, the property dispute could not be looked into by the Family Court. But here the property dispute is not between husband and wife, though the parties happen to be husband and wife. In the suit, they hold different characters i.e., the plaintiff is the proprietress of a proprietary concern and the owner of the property, which has nothing to do with her marriage with the respondent. She states that she has executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the respondent, pursuant to which, the respondent had been using the premises and, therefore, seeks a declaration that the Power of Attorney be cancelled. Thus, though the parties happen to be husband and wife, they are litigating under different characters which has nothing to do with their matrimonial relationship and, therefore, the learned Judge cannot be said to have erred in holding that the Civil Court, 4 too, has jurisdiction to decide the matter. In view of this, the revision application is rejected. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)