SRINAGAR: The Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has upheld the territorial jurisdiction of the Family Court, Jammu, to hear a Muslim woman’s divorce suit after noting that the plaint contained allegations of cruelty allegedly committed in Janipur, Jammu.
Justice Sanjay Dhar dismissed a petition filed by Israr Manzoor challenging the September 3 order of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jammu, which had rejected his plea seeking return of the plaint on the ground that the court lacked territorial jurisdiction.
The High Court observed that, while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), a court has to consider only the averments made in the plaint and the documents accompanying it. The truth or otherwise of those allegations cannot be examined at that stage.
The respondent had filed a suit under Section 2 of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, seeking dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce. The petitioner argued that the marriage was solemnised at Rajdhani in Thanamandi tehsil of Rajouri district and that the material facts and alleged incidents of cruelty and desertion had occurred there.
The High Court, however, noted that the plaint stated that the woman came to Jammu on August 22, 2023, and began living with her brother and mother in rented accommodation at Janipur after allegedly feeling threatened by the petitioner and his parents.
The plaint further alleged that on October 25, 2023, the petitioner’s parents came to Jammu to apologise and asked her to return with them. After she refused, they allegedly quarrelled with her and made derogatory, discriminatory, filthy and abusive remarks against her and her family.
Justice Dhar held that the allegations indicated that acts of alleged cruelty had occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of the Family Court, Jammu. He further observed that the woman, having shifted to Jammu after the alleged cruelty, had suffered the consequences of desertion and cruelty there.
The court made it clear that whether the allegations were actually true was a matter for trial and could not be determined while deciding the application for return of the plaint.
“Once the plaint itself contains allegations regarding acts of cruelty which allegedly took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court,” the High Court held, “it can safely be held that a part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court.”
Finding no illegality or impropriety in the Family Court’s September 3 order, the High Court dismissed the petition as devoid of merit. The order was pronounced on September 29 and uploaded on September 30, 2026.
