Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Territorial jurisdiction – Cause of action – Suit for dissolution of marriage – Where cause of action arises within territorial limits of District Munsiff Court – District Munsiff Court has jurisdiction.

A. Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 – Ss.1–5 – Forum/Jurisdiction – Suit by Muslim woman for dissolution of marriage – Act contains no provision indicating in which Court such suit is to be filed – Effect.

The Act 26 of 1939 is a short enactment of six Sections. Sections 1 to 5 do not identify the Court competent to entertain a suit for dissolution of marriage by a Muslim married woman. There is no provision in the Act specifying the forum for filing such suits. In the absence of statutory indication, the plaintiff must invoke the general procedural law. (Paras 5–7)

B. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – S.15 – Institution of suits in Court of lowest grade – Applicability to suits under Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939.

Since the 1939 Act does not prescribe the Court in which the suit is to be filed, S.15 CPC applies. A suit for dissolution under the Act 1939 can be instituted before the District Munsiff Court, being the Court of lowest grade competent to try such matters. (Paras 5, 7, 12)

C. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Territorial jurisdiction – Cause of action – Suit for dissolution of marriage – Where cause of action arises within territorial limits of District Munsiff Court – District Munsiff Court has jurisdiction.

The pleadings disclose that the cause of action for dissolution of marriage arose within the territorial jurisdiction of District Munsiff Court, Maduranthakam. Hence, that Court is competent to try the suit. (Para 8)

D. Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 – S.50(ii) – Valuation of relief for dissolution of marriage – Jurisdiction of District Munsiff Court.

Relief valued at Rs.100/- under S.50(ii). The District Munsiff Court did not dispute valuation. Read with S.15 CPC, the District Munsiff Court is the proper forum to entertain the suit. (Para 12)

E. Family Courts Act, 1984 – Ss.3 & 7 – Territorial jurisdiction of Family Courts – Notification specifying extent of jurisdiction – Family Court at Chengalpattu – Jurisdiction confined to Chengalpattu Taluk – No Family Court constituted for Maduranthakam – Effect.

Under G.O.Ms.No.1136 dated 11.12.2013, the Family Court at Chengalpattu exercises jurisdiction only over Chengalpattu Taluk. Its territorial jurisdiction does not extend to Maduranthakam. Therefore, even if suits under the 1939 Act were to be filed before a Family Court, the Family Court at Kancheepuram District lacks territorial jurisdiction over Maduranthakam. The District Munsiff Court, Maduranthakam remains the proper forum. (Paras 10–11)

F. Practice and Procedure – Return of plaint – Return by District Munsiff Court directing filing before Family Court based on earlier High Court decision – Improper when Family Court has no territorial jurisdiction.

The Trial Court returned the plaint relying on Mohamed Saif Pasha v. Madiha Arif, 2021 (4) MLJ 30. Held, the facts of that case differ; and in the absence of a Family Court with territorial jurisdiction over Maduranthakam, the District Munsiff Court must entertain the suit. (Paras 9–11)

G. Result – Civil Revision Petition allowed – District Munsiff Court directed to receive plaint and dispose of suit expeditiously.

(Para 13)

ANALYSIS

1. Core Issue

The central question before the Madras High Court was:

Whether a suit for dissolution of marriage filed by a Muslim woman under Section 2(viii)(a) of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 can be entertained by the District Munsiff Court, Maduranthakam, or whether it must be filed before the Family Court.

The Trial Court had returned the plaint, relying on an earlier Madras High Court decision (Mohamed Saif Pasha v. Madiha Arif), directing that such matters must be filed in the Family Court.

The petitioner challenged this return.

2. Statutory Silence in the DMMA, 1939

The Court undertakes a direct examination of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939.

Key finding:

• The Act does not contain any provision identifying the forum or the class of court before which a Muslim woman must file a suit for dissolution.

• The Act consists of six sections, none of which allocate jurisdiction.

This statutory silence is the turning point of the judgment.

Since the Act does not specify forum, the Court must rely on the general procedural framework.

3. Application of CPC – Section 15 and Territorial Jurisdiction

The Court applies Section 15 CPC, holding:

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

• That Court, in this case, is the District Munsiff Court.

The Court then examines territorial jurisdiction:

• It finds no dispute that the cause of action arose within the territory of Maduranthakam.

• Therefore, the District Munsiff Court, Maduranthakam has territorial jurisdiction.

Although the judgment does not expressly cite Section 20 CPC, the Court’s reasoning—based on cause of action arising within the territorial jurisdiction—reflects Section 20(c) principles.

Thus, both subject competence (Section 15 CPC) and territorial competence (cause of action test) point to the District Munsiff Court.

4. Addressing the Trial Court’s Reliance on Mohamed Saif Pasha v. Madiha Arif

The Trial Court had returned the plaint on the basis of Madiha Arif (2021 (4) MLJ 30).

The High Court distinguishes this precedent:

• Madiha Arif concerned a suit filed by a Muslim person seeking recognition of a mutual consent divorce (Mubaraat).

• The Court in that case directed the parties to approach the Family Court under Section 7(1)(b) of the Family Courts Act.

But, critically:

• In Ummusalma, there is no Family Court exercising territorial jurisdiction over Maduranthakam.

• The Family Court at Chengalpattu covers only the limits of Chengalpattu Taluk, and its territorial jurisdiction does not extend to Maduranthakam.

Hence, Madiha Arif does not govern the present case.

The Trial Court’s reliance was therefore misplaced, and its return of the plaint legally incorrect.

5. Family Courts Act – Limited Territorial Authority

The Court examines G.O.Ms.No.1136 dated 11.12.2013:

• It confirms that the Family Court, Chengalpattu, has territorial jurisdiction only over Chengalpattu Taluk.

• Maduranthakam does not fall within its limits.

• Therefore, even if all Muslim dissolution suits must go to the Family Court, that Family Court must have territorial jurisdiction, which is absent here.

This reinforces the conclusion that:

• The District Munsiff Court remains the appropriate forum, because no Family Court has authority over the geographical area where the cause of action arose.

6. Applicability of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act

The Court notes:

• The plaintiff valued the relief at Rs.100/- under Section 50(ii).

• The District Munsiff Court had no objection to the valuation.

• Therefore, the District Munsiff Court is not only territorially competent but also pecuniarily competent.

7. Outcome

Based on the integrated reading of:

• statutory silence under the 1939 Act,

• Section 15 CPC,

• territorial cause of action within Maduranthakam,

• non-extension of Family Court jurisdiction over the area, and

• correct valuation under the TN Court Fees Act,

the High Court holds:

• The plaint was wrongly returned.

• The District Munsiff Court, Maduranthakam must receive and try the suit.

• Civil Revision Petition is allowed.

The judgment closes with a direction to dispose the suit expeditiously.

8. Significance of the Judgment

This decision clarifies an important procedural point under Muslim personal law:

1. DMMA 1939 does not prescribe forum or territorial jurisdiction.

2. In the absence of contrary statutory direction, CPC governs.

3. Section 15 CPC + territorial cause of action principles determine the proper Court.

4. Family Courts Act jurisdiction is not automatic; it is limited by notified territorial boundaries.

5. Where no Family Court is notified for the area, the ordinary civil court (District Munsiff) is the correct forum.

This case is now a directly applicable precedent for all suits filed by Muslim women under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, particularly when territorial jurisdiction is disputed.