(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying to set-aside the order the learned IV Additional Family Court in I.A.No.1/2025 in HMOP.No.5050/2024, dated 10.04.2026 as illegal, incompetent, without jurisdiction and liable to set-aside in-limini.)

The issue that arises for consideration in this civil revision petition is whether an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC will apply for a petition filed for dissolution of marriage before the Family Court.

2. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 10.04.2026 passed by the IV Additional Family Court, Chennai in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in H.M.O.P.No.5050 of 2024.

3. In the aforesaid order, the application filed by the petitioner, who is the respondent in H.M.O.P.No.5050 of 2024 seeking for rejection of the petition (H.M.O.P.No.5050 of 2024) under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC has been dismissed. The family court dismissed the petitioner’s application by giving the following reasons:-

               (a) Since the respondent, who is the petitioner in H.M.O.P.No.5050 of 2024 was residing within the jurisdiction of the family court at the time of presentation of the petition and still resides in the same jurisdiction, the petition filed by the respondent seeking dissolution of his marriage with the petitioner is within the jurisdiction of the family court as per Section 19(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The family court has also observed that even though some of the events alleged may have taken place outside the jurisdiction, it may not affect the jurisdiction of the court to adjudicate the case by virtue of Section 19 (iiia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

               (b) Though the averments in the petition has been filed for dissolution of marriage by the respondent, a request to implead Mr.Syed Kishan as a party to the aforesaid HMOP is sought for by the respondent in H.M.O.P.No.5050 of 2024. There is no requirement to implead Mr.Syed Kishan as a party respondent in the said HMOP for the disposal of the H.M.O.P.No.5050 of 2024.

               (c) The family court has also rejected the citation relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in CMA(MD).No.434/2019 dated 28.01.2025, which was a case where the petition for dissolution of marriage was filed on the ground of adultery and not on the ground of cruelty.

3. Aggrieved by the findings of the family court under the impugned order, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is the husband.

4. At the outset, this Court pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to how an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is maintainable before the family court, when there is no dispute with regard to the marital relationship between the petitioner and the respondent. It is also an undisputed fact that the petitioner has got married to the respondent and out of the said wedlock, they have begotten two children.

5. In support of the petitioner’s contention that the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is maintainable, the learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to a decision rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Ameena Ali Akbar Vs. B.Ali Akbar reported in 2017 SCC OnLine Mad 7301. Relying upon the aforesaid decision, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that an application filed Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking for the rejection of petition is maintainable before the family court.

6. However, as seen from the aforesaid decision, the facts of the cited case are different from the facts of this instant case. In the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was a suit filed before the family court to declare that the plaintiff in the said suit is the wife of the defendant. However, in this instant case, the petition has been filed by the respondent under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking for dissolution of her marriage with the petitioner on the ground of cruelty. The instant case is not a similar suit as was the case in the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Order VII Rule 11 CPC makes it clear that it is applicable only for suits and it is not applicable to the petitions of the nature, which is the subject matter of consideration in this civil revision petition.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contentions drew the attention of this Court to Section 10 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 and would submit that all the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) are also applicable to the Family Courts Act as held in the decision relied upon by him in the case of Ameena Ali Akbar Vs. B.Ali Akbar reported in 2017 SCC OnLine Mad 7301. The heading of Section 10 of the Family Courts Act makes it clear that the procedure u/s 10 has to be applied “generally” but there are exceptions to the said stipulation. Section 10 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 only outline the general procedures for Family Court proceedings but it is not mandatory for the family court to follow each and every provision under the Code of Civil Procedure in letter and spirit and that is the reason the legislature thought it fit to use the term “generally” in Section 10.

8. While dealing with a situation, where the party had sought for a declaration in a civil suit to declare her as the wife of the defendant, the learned Single Judge of this Court in the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner had taken into consideration Section 10 of the Family Courts Act (procedure generally) and was not considering a situation of the nature involved in this revision. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel has no applicability to the case on hand, since in the instant case, it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner is the husband of the respondent and the respondent has filed a petition under the Hindu Marriage Act against the petitioner seeking for dissolution of her marriage with the petitioner on the ground of cruelty.

9. A marriage can be dissolved only by following the due procedure established under law. The respondent-wife is seeking for the dissolution of her marriage only by following the due procedure established under law, namely by filing a petition under the Hindu Marriage Act before the family court, which is the only legal method available for a Hindu to dissolve his/her marriage. In the said petition, the petitioner sought for dissolution of her marriage with the respondent through H.M.O.P.No.5050 of 2024, which is now pending before the VI Additional Family Court, Chennai.

10. Order VII Rule 11 CPC makes it clear that it applies only to the rejection of plaint and not for rejection of a petition. Section 10 of the Family Courts Act also makes it clear that CPC need not be applied to all cases, as it uses the term “generally”. In statutory interpretation, the term “generally” functions as a qualifying or modifying adverb. It indicates a baseline rule, standard application, or typical practice, while implicitly allowing for exceptions, deviations, or specific qualifying circumstances in individual cases. It is treated as non-absolute meaning “in most instances” or “usually” rather than “universally” or “always”. Section 20 of the Family Courts Act also elucidates that the provisions of the Family Courts Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than the Act. If the applications i.e., application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is entertained by a family court in a case involving dissolution of marriage, the other party will be left remediless. Matrimonial disputes cannot be equated with regular civil suits and therefore, Order VII Rule 11 CPC cannot be made applicable to petitions before the family court seeking for dissolution of marriage.

11. It is settled law that for dissolution of a Hindu Marriage, a party will have to seek relief only as per the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act. If the petition under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is entertained by the family court as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court, the respondent, who is the wife of the petitioner will be left remediless, and will not be in a position to seek the relief of dissolution of marriage. Though during the course of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that only on technical grounds, the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was filed before the family court, the said submission cannot be entertained by this Court as the Family Courts Act does not enable a party to file a fresh petition seeking for the dissolution of marriage, once the earlier petition filed by the very same party gets rejected by orders passed by the Court under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Therefore, the question of entertaining an application Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking for the rejection of a petition filed for dissolution of marriage is not maintainable, in a case, where the party seeking for the rejection of plaint has admitted that the respondent is his/her spouse.

12. Order VII Rule 11 of CPC strictly applies to the rejection of a plaint in a suit, not to general petitions, applications, or writ petitions. Therefore, Order VII Rule 11 CPC shall not apply to family, arbitration, or succession laws. Order VII Rule 11 CPC explicitly names only the “plaint” and tackles specific situation like lack of cause of action or under valuation, meaning it does not automatically extend to general applications or independent statutory petitions, like the one filed for dissolution of marriage before a family court. However, all the courts are having the inherent power u/s 151 of the CPC to get over any difficulty in granting any legally permissible order in the interest of justice. But, Section 151 power cannot be exercised to throw out a petition filed for dissolution of marriage as the right to seek dissolution of marriage is a statutory right granted under the Hindu Marriage Act.

13. The family court, while dismissing the application filed by the petitioner, has also given sound reasons as extracted supra in the earlier paragraphs of this order and this Court need not reiterate the same once again. Since the petition filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 CPC before the family court is not maintainable, this Court is of the considered view that the family court has rightly rejected the said application though not on the ground of maintainability, but by giving sound reasons for dismissing the petitioner’s application.

14. Since there is no merit in this civil revision petition, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.