Pleadings in Divorce Petition Determine Jurisdiction—Defence Cannot Trump Averments at the Threshold: Delhi High Court Reaffirms Scope of Order VII Rule 10 CPC

“If Divorce Petition Pleads Last Residence in Delhi, Jurisdiction Exists—Objection Can Be Raised at Trial, But Not Grounds for Return at Outset” - In a key ruling Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal by the wife challenging the jurisdiction of the Family Court at Tis Hazari to entertain her husband’s divorce petition under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the ground that the couple allegedly resided in Faridabad. The Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Renu Bhatnagar clarified that at the preliminary stage, jurisdiction must be tested solely on the basis of the petitioner’s averments, not the defendant’s denial. The Court ruled: “It is a settled position of law that for the purpose of Order VII Rule 10 CPC, the Court must confine itself to the averments in the petition.”

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and the Family Court’s jurisdiction affirmed.

“Jurisdiction Exists If Petition Alleges Last Cohabitation in Delhi—Contrary Assertions Are Trial Matter”
The Court held that since the husband in his petition expressly pleaded that the parties “last resided together as husband and wife at Anand Parbat, New Delhi,” the Family Court at Tis Hazari was well within its jurisdiction. The wife had argued that the matrimonial home was in Faridabad, where the couple had allegedly lived for several years. However, the Court clarified: “Whether the plea of the respondent of last residence at Anand Parbat is ultimately proved or not is a matter for trial. At this stage, the averment itself is sufficient to confer jurisdiction.”

The Court relied on the established principle that jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 10 CPC is to be determined on the basis of the petitioner's case alone, without reference to the written statement or defence: “It is only if, on a plain reading of the petition, no jurisdictional fact is disclosed, that a return under Order VII Rule 10 would be warranted.”

“No Objection Raised in Earlier Proceedings—Conduct Supports Petitioner’s Plea”
In evaluating the broader context, the Court noted that in earlier proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the husband, the wife had entered into a compromise without objecting to jurisdiction. She agreed to resume cohabitation at Anand Parbat, a factor the Court considered material: “No jurisdictional objection was raised in the earlier petition filed before the same Court. This lends support to the respondent’s plea that the last matrimonial home was indeed at Anand Parbat.”

“Dismissal of Objection Under Order VII Rule 10 Does Not Preclude Trial Court From Reconsidering Jurisdiction”
Importantly, the Court preserved the appellant’s right to challenge jurisdiction during trial, stating:  “The dismissal of an application under Order VII Rule 10 does not mean that the trial court is precluded from re-examining territorial jurisdiction if appropriate evidence is led at trial.”
Thus, while affirming that the Family Court could not return the petition at this stage, the Court left the jurisdiction question open for adjudication on merits.

The judgment serves as a definitive guide on the scope of Order VII Rule 10 CPC in matrimonial cases, particularly under Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which allows proceedings to be initiated where the couple last resided together. The Delhi High Court reinforced that: “The objection raised by the appellant is wholly misconceived... Prima facie, on the basis of the averments in the petition, jurisdiction lies with the Family Court at Tis Hazari.”
The Court, therefore, dismissed the appeal as devoid of merit, while allowing the appellant to contest jurisdiction substantively during trial.

Date of Decision: 7 May 2025