Court holds that part of cause of action arising within Jammu territorial limits justifies trial court's jurisdiction; application for return of plaint dismissed.
In a significant judgment dated September 29, 2026, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court dismissed a petition challenging the territorial jurisdiction of the Family Court, Jammu, in a suit filed under Section 2 of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939. The petitioner, Israr Manzoor, had sought the return of the plaint on the ground that the marriage was solemnized and all material events occurred in Thanamandi, District Rajouri, outside the jurisdiction of Jammu.
The suit was filed by the respondent, Takdis Alyas @ Takids Alyas, alleging cruelty and desertion by the petitioner. The petitioner contended that since the marriage and related incidents happened entirely in Rajouri, the Family Court, Jammu, lacked territorial jurisdiction.
The High Court, presided over by Mr. Sanjay Dhar, J., clarified the legal principles applicable under Order VII Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC). The Court emphasized that while deciding an application for return of plaint on jurisdictional grounds, the court's inquiry is confined to the averments made in the plaint and documents annexed thereto. The correctness or truthfulness of those averments cannot be tested at this stage; such issues are to be resolved during the trial on evidence.
Upon examination of the plaint, the Court noted key averments that after being threatened by the petitioner and his parents, the respondent wife shifted her residence to Janipur, Jammu, where she lived with her brother and mother. Furthermore, the respondent alleged that the petitioner's parents visited Jammu and subjected her to quarrels and derogatory remarks. These assertions disclosed acts of cruelty and the consequences of desertion occurring within Jammu's territorial jurisdiction.
The Court held that since part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the Family Court, Jammu, the trial court was rightly vested with jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It rejected the petitioner's contention and upheld the dismissal of the application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC.
This judgment reaffirms the settled legal position that territorial jurisdiction is determined by the cause of action, which may arise in multiple places. Courts must consider only the pleadings at the initial stage and not delve into factual disputes. The ruling ensures that plaintiffs can file suits where a substantial part of the cause of action has occurred, providing access to justice.
Bottom Line:
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order VII Rule 10 - While deciding application for return of plaint on ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, court has to look only to averments made in plaint and documents annexed thereto - Truth or correctness of those averments cannot be examined at that stage - Where plaint disclosed allegations of cruelty and consequences of desertion at Jammu, part of cause of action arose within territorial jurisdiction of Family Court, Jammu - Rejection of application under Order VII Rule 10 held proper.
Statutory provision(s):
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order VII Rule 10, Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 - Section 2
Israr Manzoor v. Takdis Alyas @ Takids Alyas, (J&K and Ladakh) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2990527
