The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VLADIMEER KHATOON Counsel for the Respondent: --- The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYAITA ALISHETTY CTVIL REVISION PETITION No.4O66 oi 2o25 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is hled assailing he docket order dated 01.11.2025 passed in OS.SR.No.962 of 2O2S by the Junior Civil Judge at Peddapalli, wherein and wherebv he suit hled by the petitioner herein is returned by the trial Court_ on the ground that tlie suit seeking a decree ior dissolution o marriage by a Muslim male is not iegally sustainable as per tlr: Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939.

2. Heard Ms.Vladimeer Khatoon, learned ,: runsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would s ubmit that the impugned order dated 01. i 1.2025 passed by th,,, trial Court is contrary to Section 7 of the Family Courts Act. 984, especially Explanation-a of Section 7 of tlre Family Courts A<:r , 1984. 4 . In support of her contention she relied c n the Division Bench Judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Courr in First appea_l No.1199 of 2022 dated 07.O1.2025 between Mohttnmad Shah a. Smt.Chandani Begum wherein the Division Ber:ch of Madhya Pradesh High Court held at para-1O as under; l 2 " 70. Section 7 of tlrc Act of 1984 falls uruler Chapter III which contemplates juisdiction. Section 7(1) (Explanation)(d) of Act of 1984 contemplates that a suit proceeding uhich can be entertained by Familg Court if the said suit or proceeding is for an order or injunction in circumstances arising out of a maritol relationship. Since fhis prouision does not distinguish on the basis of Caste ond Community, therefore, it is all peruasiue in nahre. It is in line uith the object of the Act of 1984 uthich reads as under: "An Act to prouide for the estoblishment of family Courts u-tith a uieu.t to promote conciliation in, and seanre speedg settlement of disputes relating to manlage ctnd family affairs and for matters connected thereuith."

5. The petitioner herein filed suit seeking decree for dissolution of marriage and the trial Court returned the suit by referring to Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 as per which only women married under Muslim Law shall be entitled to obtain decree for dissolution of marriage a

6. It is relevant to refer to Section 7 of the Family Courts Act which reads as under .7. Jurisdiction.-(1) Subject to the other prouisions of this Act, a Familg Court shall- (a) haue and exercise all the jurisdiction exercisable by any district court or anA subordinate ciuil court uftder anA lau-) for the time being in force in respect of suits and proceedings of the nature referred to in the Explanation; 3 (b) be deemed, for the purposes of ex':'cising such juisdictiort under such la u-.t, to be a district cD fft or, as the case maA be, such subordinate ciuil court jt the area to t uhiclt the juisdiction of the Familg Court exter ds. Explanation.-The suits and proceedings , ;fered to in this sub-section are suits and proceedings oi t.he follouing nature, namelg:- (a) a suit or proceeding betueen the parties t. t a marriage for a decree of nullitg of marriage (declaing tlt t manriage to be null and uoid or, as the case maA be, t nnulling the marriage) or restitution of conjugal ights or judicial separation or dissolution of marriage;"

7. It is also relevant to refer to Rule-S (d)(vii) o the High Court of A.P. Family Courts (Court) Rules, 2005 which re reds as under; "5. Instihttion of Proceedings:- (d) TLLe application mag be filed before Familg cour'. as pennitted under ang law uthich also includes prouisions cot rtained in the following lauls uiz., (uii) Personal lau applicable to Muslims including: j a) Muslim Personal Lau (Shaiat) applicatic''t Act, 1937 (26 of 1es7) b) Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 193') (8 of 1es9) c) Muslim u)omen (Protection of Rights on lttuorce) Act, 1986 (2s of 1986)"

8. The Madhya Pradesh High Court tn Mohttnmad Sho,h a, Smt.Chc,ndo'ni Begum (supra 1) at para 12 furthe r held that; 4 r-l " 12. Rule 9(2)(uii) ts framed in respect of suit or proceeding arising out of personal low applicable to Muslim including the SLtaiot Act and the Act of 1939. Perusal of these Acts ond rules reueal-s that so far as Sl.niat Act is concetred for reolization of the issue (like -diuorce in th-e present case) has to be reguloted through procedure and procedure as prescibed in the Act of 1984 a-s ueLI as High Court of Madhgo Pradesh FamiLg Court Rules. Therefore, the procedure established bg lau-, is clear ttnt a Muslim male cttn sue a suit or proceeding for dissolution of marriage on the grounds as auailable to him."

9. The Madhya Pradesh High Court further held that a Muslirn Male calnot be denied to access justice or judicial forum to ventilate his grievances and the same is against Constitutional spirit, morality and Constitutional Vision of Justice

10. It is relevant to note that Rule-9(2)(vii) of High court of Madhya Pradesh Family Court Ru1es, 19BB is akin to Rule S(d)(vii) of the High Court of A.P. Famiiy Courts (Court) Rules, 2005.

11. In view of Explanation-(a) of Section-7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 and Rule-S (d)(vii) of the High Court of A.P. Family Courts (Court) Rules,2005, there is no express bar to file divorce petition by a Muslim husband by approaching the Family Court. Further, a Muslim husband cannot be deprived from hling suit for dissolution and he cannot be rendered remedy less. i i I 1 i 5

12. In considered opinion of this Court, thr: trial Court has committed error in returning the suit hled by th,: petitioner herein by only referring to Dissolution of Muslim Mar-iages Act, 1939 and without taking into consideration Explanati,; r-(a) of Section-7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 as well as Rule-s (1)(vii) of rhe High Court of A.P. Family Courts (Court) Rules, 20115, therefore, the impugned docket order dated 01.11..2025 in r )S.SR.No.962 of 2025 is unsustainable.

13. In view of the above, the CRP is allowed ,,etting aside the impugned docket order dated O1.11.2025 passei n OS.SR.No.962 of 2025 by the Junior Civil Judge at Peddapzr ti, and the tria_l Court is directed to number the suit and proceec with the matter further in accordance with law. No order as to co s .s Miscellaleous petitions pending, if any, shel stand closed. I SD/. N.CH At\DRA SEKHAR RAO )t;PUrY REgtgIRAR-- //TRUE COPY// \ .1 IiECTION OFFICER To, '1. The Junlor Civil Judge Court peddapalli. 2. One CC to SRI VLADTMEER KHATOON Advocate [OpL( ] 3. Two CD Copies \ NVB/I'SL HIGH COURT DATED:1411112025 v r-) ::>- g'j i :i..1,. .$' \\\ ,z\\ .;. .l (Eo LL ORDER €. CRP.No.4066 of 2025 -'() ) 1e".1 1 '-.:'--'.i;1: c '.:..;" a ALLOW!NG THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION 21 1t w/