Allegations Of Cruelty At Place Where Wife Resides Can Confer Territorial Jurisdiction Over Divorce Suit: J&K&L High Court

Update: 2026-10-03 13:35 GMT

Click the Play button to listen to article

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that where a wife's divorce plaint alleges acts of cruelty within the territorial jurisdiction of the court approached, the plaint cannot be returned merely because the marriage was solemnised and other events occurred elsewhere.

The question at the preliminary stage is whether the plaint discloses a part of the cause of action within the court's jurisdiction, not whether the allegations can ultimately be proved, it added.

The Court was hearing a petition challenging the dismissal of an application under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), through which the husband had sought return of a divorce plaint filed before the Family Court, Jammu, on the ground that the marriage and the material events had occurred in Thanamandi, District Rajouri.

Justice Sanjay Dhar dismissed the petition, emphasising that “the veracity or correctness of the assertions made in the plaint cannot be examined by the court while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC.”

The wife had instituted proceedings under Section 2 of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, before the Family Court, Jammu, seeking dissolution of her marriage.

The husband sought return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, contending that the marriage had been solemnised at Rajdhani, Tehsil Thanamandi, District Rajouri, and that the material events, including the alleged cruelty and desertion, had occurred there. He accordingly questioned the territorial jurisdiction of the Family Court, Jammu.

The Family Court rejected the application, holding that part of the cause of action had arisen within its territorial jurisdiction. The husband challenged that order before the High Court.

Court's Observations

Justice Sanjay Dhar reiterated that an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC must be decided by examining the plaint and the documents accompanying it. The court is not required, at that stage, to test the truth of the plaintiff's allegations or conduct a trial into the disputed facts.

The Court observed,

“It is a settled law that, while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC, the court has to consider only the averments contained in the plaint and the documents annexed thereto.”

Applying this principle, the Court examined the allegations in the wife's plaint. It noted that she had stated that, after allegedly facing cruelty and feeling threatened, she shifted to Jammu on August 22, 2023, and began residing with her brother and mother in rented accommodation at Janipur.

The plaint further alleged that on October 25, 2023, the husband's parents came to Jammu to tender an apology and requested her to return with them. When she declined, they allegedly quarrelled with her and made derogatory and abusive remarks against her and her family.

The Court found that the plaint thus contained allegations of acts of cruelty allegedly committed at Janipur, Jammu. It also noted the wife's case that, after shifting to Jammu, she had suffered the consequences of the alleged cruelty and desertion there.

On these averments, the Court held that a part of the cause of action was disclosed within the territorial jurisdiction of the Family Court, Jammu. It observed,

“Once the plaint itself contains allegations regarding acts of cruelty which allegedly took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court, it can safely be held that a part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court.”

The Court clarified that whether the alleged incidents actually occurred was a matter to be determined on the basis of evidence during trial. That question could not be examined while deciding the application for return of the plaint.

The legal distinction drawn by the Court was between the threshold inquiry into jurisdiction and the subsequent adjudication of the allegations on evidence. At the preliminary stage, the court had to determine whether the plaint disclosed facts supporting territorial jurisdiction; it could not reject that basis by prematurely deciding whether the alleged acts of cruelty were true.

Finding that the plaint disclosed alleged acts of cruelty within Jammu, the High Court held that the Family Court had rightly declined to return it.

The High Court thus found no illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the Family Court, Jammu, and dismissed the petition as devoid of merit. The challenge to the Family Court's territorial jurisdiction therefore failed.