ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the written endorsement of the plaint in O.S.No.40 of 2022 on the file of the learned Distict Munsiff, Maduranthakam.

2. The petitioner has filed O.S.No.40 of 2022 on the file of the learned District Munsiff, Maduranthakam, seeking for dissolution of her marriage with the respondent under Section 2 (Viii)(a) of the Dissolution of Muslims Marriage Act, 1939 R/W Order VIII, Rule 1 and Section 26 of C.P.C [hereinafter “the Dissolution of Muslims Marriage Act, 1939” is referred as “the act 1939”]. The respondent having received the summons, failed to appear before the Court, thereby he was set exparte. When the matter was posted for exparte evidence, the said O.S.No.40 of 2022 was returned by the Trial Court on the ground that the District Munsiff Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the subject matter of the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this Civil Revision Petition.

3. As the respondent remained exparte, in O.S.No.40 of 2022 and since the issue raised by the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition is between the petitioner and the Court, this Court is of the opinion that notice to the respondent need not be issued, in order to decide this Revision.

4. The return endorsement of the Trial Court runs as under:

“APC filed and correct. Plaintiff present. Heard the counsel for the plaintiff with regard to the maintainability of this suit in this Court. As per the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble High Court, Madras in the case of Mohamed Saif Pasha vs. Madiha Arif, [2021 (4) MLJ 30] the plaint in the above suit is returned to be presented before the proper forum.”

Questioning the above said return endorsement, this Civil Revision Petition is filed on the ground that the District Munsiff Court alone is having jurisdiction to try the suit filed Muslim women under the act 1939.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no provision in Act 1939 mentioning as to in which Court the suit for dissolution of married Muslim women has to be filed. Thereby as per Section 15 of C.P.C., read with Section 50(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, the District Munsiff Court is having jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed under the act 1939.

6. Perused the copy of the plaint, the pleadings show that marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was held on 09.08.2014. As per the plaint the respondent has suppressed the fact that he has already resigned his job and was working as Driver in DON TRADING Company in Kuwait. The petitioner has joined the respondent in Kuwait, however the martial life of the petitioner with the respondent did not get along well on account of multiple issues, hence, both of them started living separately from February 2020. The petitioner has and the respondent have also signed in Mutual Divorce Agreement dated 07.08.2022. Subsequently decree was also confirmed by the Family Court (of First Instance) at Kuwait, later the petitioner came back to India and filed a suit for dissolution of marriage.

7. The Act 1939 is simple enactment with six Sections of which Section 1 speaks about the short title and extent, Section 2 speaks about the grounds for decree for dissolution of marriage, Section 3 speaks about the Notice to be served on heirs of the husband when the husband's whereabout are not known, Section 4 speaks about effect of conversion to another faith, Section 5 speaks about the rights tor dower not be affected and Section 6 was repealed by Section 5 of the Act 26 of 1937. On going through these provisions, it is clear that there is no provision in the Act as to in which Court a suit for grant of decree for dissolution of marriage can be filed by a Muslim married women under the act 1939. Therefore, there is no specific mention about the subject matter of jurisdiction, Section 15 of C.P.C., runs as under:

“Every suit shall be instituted in the Court of lowest grade competent to try it”

As there is