Back
Israr Manzoor Loses Jurisdiction Challenge as Wife Alleges Cruelty at Jammu Residence High Court
The has dismissed a petition filed by Israr Manzoor challenging the of the in a divorce suit initiated by his wife, Takdis Alyas. Justice Sanjay Dhar, presiding over the matter, held that the plaint’s specific allegations of cruelty at the wife’s residence in Janipur, Jammu constituted a part of the , thereby conferring jurisdiction on the Family Court. The ruling reinforces the principle that at the preliminary stage of a suit, courts must rely solely on the plaint’s averments rather than testing their veracity.
Marriage in Rajouri, Cruelty Alleged in Jammu
The dispute arose from a marriage solemnized at Rajdhani, Tehsil Thanamandi, District Rajouri. After the marital relationship soured, the wife filed a suit under before the , seeking dissolution of the marriage. In her plaint, she alleged that after facing cruelty and feeling threatened, she moved to Jammu on and began living with her brother and mother in rented accommodation at Janipur. She further claimed that on , the husband’s parents visited Jammu, purportedly to apologise, but when she refused to return with them, they allegedly hurled derogatory and abusive remarks at her and her family.
Husband’s Plea: ‘All Events Occurred Elsewhere’
The husband, Israr Manzoor, countered by filing an application under , seeking the on the ground that the lacked . He argued that the marriage was solemnised in Rajouri and that all material events—including the alleged cruelty and desertion—occurred within the territorial limits of Thanamandi, District Rajouri. According to him, no part of the had arisen within the jurisdiction of the . The trial court, however, dismissed the application, holding that a part of the had indeed arisen within its jurisdiction. Aggrieved, the husband approached the High Court.
Court’s Legal Lens: Only Plaint Averments Matter
Justice Sanjay Dhar reiterated the settled legal position that while adjudicating an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, the court is confined to examining the averments in the plaint and the documents annexed to it. The court is not required, at that stage, to examine the truthfulness of the allegations or to conduct a trial into disputed facts. The judgment emphasised 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.” Applying this principle, the High Court scrutinised the plaint and found that it contained specific allegations of acts of cruelty allegedly committed at Janipur, Jammu—including the incident involving the husband’s parents on . The court also noted that the wife claimed to have suffered the consequences of desertion and cruelty after shifting to Jammu.
‘A Part of the Has Arisen’ – Key Observation
The High Court drew a clear distinction between the threshold inquiry into jurisdiction and the subsequent adjudication of the merits. “Once the plaint itself contains allegations regarding acts of cruelty which allegedly took place within the of the trial court, it can safely be held that a part of the has arisen within the of the trial court,” Justice Dhar observed. The court further clarified that whether the alleged incidents actually occurred is a matter to be determined on the basis of evidence during trial and cannot be examined at the stage of deciding an application for .
Petition Dismissed, Trial to Continue
Finding no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order, the High Court dismissed the petition as devoid of merit. The will now proceed with the divorce suit on its merits. The ruling underscores the importance of the plaint’s allegations in determining at a preliminary stage and affirms that a wife’s choice of forum, when supported by specific averments of cruelty at that place, will be respected by the courts.
