Sarita Draful Atram vs Draful Anandrao Atram — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2026)

Sarita Draful Atram vs Draful Anandrao Atram — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 26.07.2024 of the Civil Judge Senior Division, Chandrapur, rejecting the petitioner-wife's application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC for rejection of plaint, warrants interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. +1 more

Court's answer

There is no perversity in the impugned order warranting interference, and no indulgence is warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the impugned order.

Ratio / Principle

Since the respondent-husband categorically averred in the plaint that the marriage was performed as per Hindu rites and customs, and the husband has claimed that the Hindu Marriage Act is applicable, the defence raised by the wife cannot be the basis to allow the application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of C.P.C.

Key takeaways

An application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. has to be decided by considering the averments in the plaint only.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Procedure - Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC - Rejection of plaint - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Sections 13(i) (i-a) and (i-b) - Divorce petition - Wife sought rejection of plaint in husband's Hindu marriage petition contending that both parties belong to the scheduled tribe (Adiwasi-Pardhan caste) and the marriage was not performed in accordance with Hindu rites and customs - Trial court rejected the application, observing that the husband had categorically averred in the plaint that the marriage was performed as per Hindu rites and customs and that he claimed applicability of the Hindu Marriage Act - Held (PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.): an application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. has to be decided by considering the averments in the plaint only; the wife's defence cannot be the basis to allow such an application; no perversity found in the impugned order; no indulgence warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

2026:BHC-NAG:4096

1 15. WP 5148 of 2025.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

WRIT PETITION NO.5148 OF 2025

SARITA DRAFUL ATRAM VERSUS

DRAFUL ANANDRAO ATRAM

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's orders Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders

Mr. R.D. Murkute, Advocate for Petitioner.

CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J. DATED : 09^th MARCH 2026

Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner.

The petitioner has challenged an order dated 26.07.2024,

passed by Civil Judge Senior Division, Chandrapur, at Exhibit 10, in H.M.P. No.99 of 2024, rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “C.P.C.”), which was an application filed by the petitioner-wife for rejection of plaint in a Hindu marriage petition.

The respondent-husband has filed a Hindu marriage petition bearing No.99 of 2024, seeking divorce under Sections 13(i) (i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in which the petitioner-wife has appeared and filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of C.P.C., seeking rejection of plaint. The only ground canvassed on behalf of the petitioner in the said application is that both the parties belong to scheduled tribe i.e. Adiwasi-Pardhan caste

2 15. WP 5148 of 2025.odt

and their marriage was not performed in accordance with the Hindu rites and customs, as alleged in the petition. On this basis, the petitioner prayed for rejection of plaint in the Hindu marriage petition.

It has to be seen that that the trial court has given due consideration to the contentions canvassed on behalf of the petitioner and having observed that the respondent-husband has categorically averred in the plaint that the marriage was performed as per the Hindu rites and customs. Further, as the husband has claimed that the Hindu Marriage Act is applicable, the defence raised by the wife cannot be the basis to allow the application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of C.P.C.

A perusal of the impugned order shows that the trial court has given due consideration to the factual and legal aspects. It has to be noted that an application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. has to be decided by considering the averments in the plaint only. I do not find any perversity with the impugned order warranting interference. No indulgence is, therefore, warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the impugned order. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)

asd