Mohammedan Law – Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Maintainability – Muslim Husband Entitled to Sue A suit for restitution of conjugal rights is recognized under Mohammedan Law, specifically Section 281 of Mulla’s Principles of Mohammedan Law, permitting a Muslim husband to sue where the wife withdraws without lawful cause. Paras 2, 3, 5 (extract of §281), 7

A. Mohammedan Law – Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Maintainability – Muslim Husband Entitled to Sue

A suit for restitution of conjugal rights is recognized under Mohammedan Law, specifically Section 281 of Mulla’s Principles of Mohammedan Law, permitting a Muslim husband to sue where the wife withdraws without lawful cause.
Paras 2, 3, 5 (extract of §281), 7

B. Family Courts Act, 1984 – Exclusive Jurisdiction – Applies to All Communities Including Muslims

Family Courts Act, 1984 confers exclusive jurisdiction upon Family Courts in matters relating to: nullity of marriage, judicial separation, divorce, restitution of conjugal rights, legitimacy, guardianship, custody, and maintenance.
This jurisdiction applies uniformly to all communities, regardless of personal law.
Paras 5, 16, 17, 18, 7

C. Personal Law Does NOT Oust Jurisdiction of Family Court

Matrimonial disputes of Muslims are not excluded from the Family Courts Act.
The mere fact that parties are governed by Mohammedan Law does not bar the Family Court from entertaining an RCR suit.
Paras 16, 17

D. Trial Court’s View Rejecting Maintainability under Muslim Law is Incorrect

Trial court’s reasoning that restitution of conjugal rights is not maintainable because parties are Muslim is held unsustainable in law.
Family Court’s authority flows from Section 7, not from personal law limitations.
Paras 16, 17

E. Section 1(2), Family Courts Act – Act Extends to Whole of India – Uniform Application

Section 1(2) ensures the Family Courts Act applies to all regions and all communities nationwide.
Thus, Muslim marriages are equally subject to the jurisdictional mandate of Family Courts.
Paras 17, 18

F. Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Challenged by Wife – Writ Petition Not Maintainable

Wife’s challenge to RCR proceedings on the ground that Muslim law does not recognize RCR was rejected.
High Court holds RCR suits by Muslims are recognized both under Mulla §281 and under Family Courts Act jurisdiction.
Paras 2, 6, 7

G. Support from Tripura High Court Precedent

Court relies on MD Deepraj Sarkar v. Tahima Aktar, 2024 LawSuit (TR) 317, holding that Family Courts have exclusive jurisdiction over matrimonial disputes, including RCR, irrespective of religion.
Paras 3, 5

H. Writ Petition – No Interference Warranted – Dismissed

Since the Family Court has jurisdiction and RCR is maintainable for Muslims, no case for interference under Article 227 is made out.
Writ petition dismissed; interim relief vacated.
Paras 7, 8

LEGAL ANALYSIS

1. Nature of the Proceedings

The proceeding is a writ petition under Article 227, filed by the wife to quash RCR proceedings pending before the Family Court, Jagdalpur.

The petitioner challenges:

1. Maintainability of a restitution of conjugal rights (RCR) suit under Muslim law, and

2. Jurisdiction of the Family Court to entertain such a suit.

Therefore, the issues are jurisdictional and personal-law related, not factual.

2. Core Legal Questions Addressed

The High Court resolves three principal questions:

(i) Whether restitution of conjugal rights is recognized under Muslim personal law?

Answer: Yes.
The Court relies on Section 281, Mulla’s Principles of Mohammedan Law, which expressly recognizes the remedy.
(Paras 3, 5)

(ii) Whether the Family Court has jurisdiction over RCR proceedings involving Muslim spouses?

Answer: Yes.
Family Courts Act, 1984 gives exclusive jurisdiction to Family Courts for all matrimonial causes, regardless of religion.
(Paras 5, 16, 17, 18)

(iii) Whether personal law can oust statutory jurisdiction of Family Courts?

Answer: No.
Personal law does not exclude Family Court jurisdiction unless Parliament expressly provides otherwise.
(Paras 16, 17)

This is the decisive doctrinal basis for dismissal of the writ petition.

3. Reasoning Adopted by the Court

A. Recognition of RCR under Muslim Law (Paras 2, 3, 5)

The Court reaffirms that:

• Marriage in Muslim law is a civil contract,

• Section 281 Mulla expressly provides for a husband’s right to file a suit for restitution of conjugal rights,

• Therefore, there is no merit in the wife’s contention that RCR is not a recognized remedy under Muslim law.

The Court also rejects the argument that the absence of an express codified Muslim-law statute precludes RCR claims.

This is consistent with judicial consensus across High Courts.

B. Family Court Jurisdiction – Statutory, Not Religion-Specific (Paras 5, 16–18)

The High Court emphasises:

1. Family Courts Act applies to all communities (Section 1(2) extends it to “whole of India”).

2. Section 7 vests exclusive jurisdiction in the Family Court for suits relating to:

   • nullity

   • judicial separation

   • divorce

   • restitution of conjugal rights

   • legitimacy

   • guardianship, custody, maintenance

3. Jurisdiction under FCA is not subordinated to personal law limitations.

4. Courts adjudicate matrimonial rights even when they arise under Mohammedan Law.

This is crucial:
The judgment treats FCA as superseding personal-law objections wherever the Act confers jurisdiction.

C. Trial Court’s Error (Paras 16–17)

The lower court had dismissed the husband’s RCR suit on the premise that:

• Because the parties are Muslim,

• RCR is not maintainable under personal law,

• Thus, Family Court lacked jurisdiction.

The High Court finds this logic wholly unsustainable, holding:

• Family Courts Act overrides this view;

• Family Courts must entertain matrimonial causes irrespective of the religious law governing the marriage.

This restores uniformity in matrimonial adjudication.

D. Reliance on Tripura HC Judgment (Para 3)

The Court cites MD Deepraj Sarkar v. Tahima Aktar, 2024 LawSuit (TR) 317, which held:

• Family Courts have exclusive and overriding jurisdiction over RCR matters including those involving Muslims.

This reinforces the view that:

• Personal law does not determine forum;

• Statutory jurisdiction prevails.

4. Findings on Facts (Paras 2–3, 6)

Although the wife alleged cruelty, dowry demands, and character assassination, the High Court does not decide factual cruelty in this writ.
Instead, it limits itself to:

• Whether the proceedings are without jurisdiction

• Whether the suit is maintainable

• Whether writ interference is warranted

Since jurisdiction exists and the suit is maintainable, the High Court refuses to quash.

This respects the limited supervisory role under Article 227.

5. Conclusion and Operative Part

Petition Dismissed (Paras 7–8)

RCR suit before Family Court is:

• Maintainable under Muslim law,

• Within Family Court’s statutory jurisdiction,

• Not liable to be quashed under writ jurisdiction.

Interim order also vacated.

6. Ratio Decidendi (Binding Legal Principle)

Restitution of conjugal rights is a recognized remedy under Muslim law (Section 281, Mulla).
Family Courts Act, 1984 confers exclusive jurisdiction upon Family Courts over all matrimonial matters—including RCR—irrespective of the personal law of the parties.
Therefore, RCR suits involving Muslims are maintainable before Family Courts across India.

Supported by Paras 3, 5, 16, 17, 18.