Family Courts Act, 1984 – S.7(1) & Explanation (a),(b),(d) – Jurisdiction – Dissolution of marriage – Muslim parties – Maintainability of suit for divorce by Muslim male – Scope. Held, S.7 of the Act of 1984 is all-pervasive and not religion-specific; it covers suits/proceedings concerning dissolution of marriage irrespective of community. Explanation (d) permits suits for orders/injunctions arising out of marital relationships. When read with the Madhya Pradesh Family Court Rules, 1988, r.9(2)(vii), suits or proceedings arising out of personal law applicable to Muslims including the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 and the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 fall within the cognizance of Family Courts. Therefore, a Muslim male can maintain proceedings for dissolution of marriage before the Family Court. (Paras 10–12)

MOHAMMAD SHAH v. SMT. CHANDANI BEGUM
FIRST APPEAL No. 1199 of 2022 (High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench)
Decided on: 07-01-2025
Coram: Anand Pathak, J. & Hirdesh, J.

1. Family Courts Act, 1984 – S.7(1) & Explanation (a),(b),(d) – Jurisdiction – Dissolution of marriage – Muslim parties – Maintainability of suit for divorce by Muslim male – Scope.
   Held, S.7 of the Act of 1984 is all-pervasive and not religion-specific; it covers suits/proceedings concerning dissolution of marriage irrespective of community. Explanation (d) permits suits for orders/injunctions arising out of marital relationships. When read with the Madhya Pradesh Family Court Rules, 1988, r.9(2)(vii), suits or proceedings arising out of personal law applicable to Muslims including the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 and the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 fall within the cognizance of Family Courts. Therefore, a Muslim male can maintain proceedings for dissolution of marriage before the Family Court. (Paras 10–12)

2. Muslim Law – Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 – S.2 – Remedy available only to Muslim women – Effect.
   Although S.2 of the 1939 Act provides specific grounds for a Muslim woman to obtain dissolution, absence of an equivalent statutory provision for a Muslim male does not bar him from invoking jurisdiction under the Family Courts Act, 1984. Dissolution of marriage by a Muslim husband through judicial forum must be regulated through the procedure under the Act of 1984 and the Family Court Rules. (Paras 9, 12)

3. Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 – S.2 – Modes of dissolution (Talaq, Ila, Zihar, Lian, Khula, Mubaraat) – Judicial recourse.
   Shariat Act covers dissolution forms recognised under Muslim Law. For securing judicial intervention, the statutory mechanism under the Family Courts Act must be invoked. (Paras 6, 12)

4. Interpretation of Statutes – Constitutional Morality – Access to Justice – Denial of remedy – Effect.
   A Muslim male cannot be rendered remediless. To deny him access to judicial forum for dissolution of marriage would run contrary to Constitutional morality, access to justice principles and constitutional vision of justice. (Para 14)

5. Family Court – Maintainability – Divorce suit filed by Muslim male – Erroneous dismissal by Family Court.
   Trial Court’s dismissal of divorce proceedings on ground of non-maintainability held unsustainable. Judgment set aside; matter remanded for adjudication on merits. (Para 15)

6. Precedents – Aqeel Ahmed (Khan) v. Smt. Farzana Khatun, FA No. 1017/2022 (MP HC) – Settu v. Reshma Sulthana, C.M.A. No.2192/2017 (Madras HC) – Followed.
   Division Bench relied on earlier judgments where maintainability of similar proceedings was recognized. (Para 13)

7. Family Courts – Settlement – Liberty to parties.
   Since proceedings are maintainable, parties are permitted to appear before the trial Court and pursue dissolution/settlement. (Paras 16–17)

8. Direction – Circulation of Judgment.
   Order directed to be circulated to all Civil/Family Courts through Registrar General. (Para 19)

ANALYSIS

The Division Bench addressed a narrow but significant question: whether a Muslim male can maintain a suit for dissolution of marriage before a Family Court under the Family Courts Act, 1984, despite the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 conferring an express statutory right of judicial divorce only upon Muslim women.

1. Statutory Context and Core Issue

The trial Court dismissed the husband’s divorce petition solely on the ground that no statutory provision exists enabling a Muslim male to seek dissolution through a judicial decree, unlike a Muslim woman who has recourse under Section 2 of the 1939 Act.

Thus, the maintainability question was strictly jurisdictional.

2. Scope of Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984

The High Court firmly rooted its reasoning in Section 7(1) and the Explanation to the Act of 1984. The Explanation lists suits that fall within Family Court jurisdiction, including:

• dissolution of marriage

• declaration of matrimonial status

• injunctions arising out of marital relationships

Crucially, Section 7 does not distinguish between personal laws or communities.

Therefore, the Bench interpreted Section 7 as an enabling jurisdictional provision, allowing the Family Court to entertain dissolution-related proceedings irrespective of the religion of the parties.

3. Support from the Madhya Pradesh Family Court Rules, 1988

Rule 9(2)(vii) is pivotal. It directs Family Courts to register suits arising out of:

• Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, and

• Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939

This indicates that the High Court is empowered to issue instructions for registering suits arising under Muslim personal law generally, not only those filed by women under the 1939 Act.

The Court read these rules harmoniously with Section 7, concluding that a Muslim male’s petition grounded in personal law or marital circumstances falls squarely within Family Court jurisdiction.

4. Position under Muslim Personal Law

Muslim law recognises modes of dissolution available to the husband—Talaq, Ila, Zihar, Lian, Khula, Mubaraat—but these are non-judicial.

The Court held that, when a Muslim husband seeks judicial recognition or adjudication, the proper mechanism is through the Family Courts Act, which provides procedural access to the judicial forum.

5. Access to Justice and Constitutional Morality

A notable dimension of the judgment is constitutional:

• Denying a Muslim male access to judicial dissolution would render him “remediless”.

• Such denial would contravene constitutional morality, the “vision of justice”, and the principle that no person should be barred from judicial remedy for marital disputes.

This constitutional grounding strengthens the holding beyond statutory interpretation.

6. Precedent: MP High Court and Madras High Court

The Division Bench relied on earlier decisions:

• Aqeel Ahmed (Khan) v. Farzana Khatun (MP High Court, DB, 2022)

• Settu v. Reshma Sulthana (Madras High Court, DB, 2021)

Both recognized the maintainability of dissolution proceedings initiated by Muslim husbands.

The Bench treated these as persuasive and consistent authority substantiating the present conclusion.

7. Outcome

• The Family Court’s order was set aside as legally erroneous.

• The matter was remanded for adjudication on merits.

• Both sides were permitted to pursue settlement or dissolution proceedings before the trial Court.

• The judgment was directed to be circulated to all Civil/Family Courts—demonstrating the Court’s intent to clarify the legal position uniformly.