NEW DELHI: Can a divorce case be heard in a court outside the place where a couple was married if the wife later moved there after allegedly facing cruelty? The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh high court recently examined this question while deciding whether a family court in Jammu had territorial jurisdiction to hear a divorce petition.The court refused to interfere with the family court’s decision and said that, when deciding whether a plaint (the document that starts a civil suit) should be returned, a court has to look only at the allegations made in it. It cannot decide whether those allegations are actually true at that stage.What was the dispute over the divorce case?As per the court order, the wife had filed a divorce suit under Section 2 of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, before the additional principal judge, family court, Jammu.The husband challenged the family court proceedings, arguing that the case should be heard elsewhere because the marriage took place at Rajdhani in Thanamandi, Rajouri.He further argued that the material events connected with the marriage, including the allegations of cruelty and desertion, had taken place in Thanamandi. Therefore, according to him, the Jammu court did not have territorial jurisdiction.The husband asked the family court to send the divorce petition back so that it could be filed before a court with jurisdiction.The family court rejected his application on September 3, 2026, saying that at least part of the cause of action had arisen within its jurisdiction. The husband then challenged that order before the high court.What is Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC?Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with situations where a suit has been filed before a court that does not have the required jurisdiction.In simple terms, if a court finds that it cannot hear a particular case because of a lack of territorial or other jurisdiction, it can return the petition to the person who filed it so that it can be presented before the appropriate court.But while deciding such an application, the court does not conduct a full trial or decide whether the allegations in the petition are true.What did the high court examine?Justice Sanjay Dhar of the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh high court examined what the wife had stated in her petition to determine whether any part of the dispute arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Jammu court.The court noted that her petition stated that the parties were residing in Thanamandi at the time of their marriage. It also contained allegations of dowry demands and cruelty by the husband and his family.The wife had alleged that after feeling threatened by the husband and his parents, she came to Jammu on August 22, 2023, and started living with her brother and mother in rented accommodation at Janipur.Her petition further alleged that the husband’s parents came to Jammu on October 25, 2023, to apologise and asked her to return with them. When she refused, they allegedly quarrelled with her and made derogatory, discriminatory, filthy and abusive remarks against her and her family members.The high court also explained an important limitation on what a court can examine while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC.“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,” the high court said.The court further made clear that the truth of those allegations cannot be examined at this stage.“It is equally settled position of law 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,” it added.The high court found that her petition itself contained allegations about acts of cruelty allegedly committed by the husband’s parents at Janipur in Jammu.The court said the wife had moved to Jammu after the alleged cruelty and had claimed that she suffered the consequences of cruelty and desertion there.“Since the plaintiff after being subjected to cruelty by the defendant shifted to Jammu, as such, she has suffered the consequences of desertion and cruelty at Jammu,” the court noted.The high court stressed that this did not mean the allegations had been proved. Whether the alleged acts actually took place would have to be decided during the trial after evidence is presented.“The question as to whether or not these allegations are true cannot be gone into by this Court at this stage, as the same is a matter of trial,” the court further noted.It then held that because her petition itself alleged acts of cruelty within the territorial jurisdiction of the Jammu court, at least part of the cause of action had arisen there.“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 said.The court added that whether those acts actually happened was a matter to be decided on the basis of evidence during the trial and could not be examined while deciding the application to return the petition.Justice Dhar dismissed the husband’s petition and upheld the family court’s September 3 order.The high court said it found no illegality or impropriety in the family court’s decision to retain the divorce case in Jammu.The petition was therefore dismissed as being without merit. The court’s order does not decide whether the allegations of cruelty are true. That question will have to be examined during the trial on the basis of evidence.
