Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Muslim Matrimonial Jurisdiction
Repeal Doctrine, Plenary Civil Authority, and Conditional Ouster under the Family Courts Act
I. Civil Court Jurisdiction: The Starting Principle
The inquiry begins with Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which confers jurisdiction upon civil courts to try all suits of a civil nature except those expressly or impliedly barred.
Matrimonial status disputes are civil in character. Therefore, exclusion must be demonstrated through clear statutory language.
The Supreme Court in Balram Yadav v. Fulmaniya Yadav, (2016) 13 SCC 308, while interpreting Sections 7, 8 and 20 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, held that once a Family Court is established for a territorial area, civil courts stand excluded in respect of matrimonial status disputes. However, the Court proceeded on the admitted premise that a Family Court existed with territorial competence. The decision does not abolish civil jurisdiction in areas where Family Courts are not established.
Thus, ouster under the Family Courts Act is territorial and conditional — not abstract or statewide.
II. Section 5 of the Shariat Act and the Repeal Doctrine: AIR 1963 AP 459
The most foundational authority on Muslim matrimonial jurisdiction remains Syed Shamsuddin v. Munira Begum, AIR 1963 AP 459 (P. Satyanarayana Raju, J.).
Originally, Section 5 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 vested jurisdiction in the District Judge to dissolve Muslim marriages. Section 6 of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 repealed Section 5. Later, Section 6 was itself repealed by the Repealing and Amending Act XXV of 1942.
The argument was that repeal of Section 6 revived Section 5, thereby restoring exclusive District Court jurisdiction.
The High Court rejected the contention by applying:
• Section 7 of the General Clauses Act, 1897
• Section 4 of the Repealing and Amending Act, 1942
• The rule stated in Ameerun-Nissa Begum v. Mahboob Begum, AIR 1955 SC 352
The Court held:
Section 5 of the Shariat Act has not been revived. The lower Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. (AIR 1963 AP 459)
This ruling conclusively establishes that no statutory District Court exclusivity survives under Muslim personal law.
Jurisdiction therefore reverted to the ordinary civil court hierarchy.
III. Section 15 CPC: The Lowest Competent Court Rule
Once exclusivity is absent, Section 15 CPC becomes operative:
Every suit shall be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it.
Thus, where no statute mandates District Court jurisdiction, the Civil Judge (Junior Division) is the proper forum, subject to pecuniary and territorial competence.
This is structurally different from statutes such as:
• The Indian Divorce Act
• The Special Marriage Act
• The Guardians and Wards Act
Each of those statutes expressly confers jurisdiction upon the District Court. Muslim personal law enactments do not.
Statutory silence in one regime cannot be cured by analogy to another.
IV. Talaq, Triple Talaq, and Declaratory Jurisdiction
The Andhra Pradesh High Court in Shaik Jareena v. Shaik Dariyavali, C.R.P. No.2477 of 2019 (05.01.2023), considered a suit before the Principal Junior Civil Judge seeking declaration that marriage stood dissolved by triple talaq.
The Court did not question the jurisdiction of the Junior Civil Judge. Instead, it rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC because triple talaq had been declared unconstitutional in Shayara Banu v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1.
The Court further relied upon:
• P.V. George v. State of Kerala, (2007) 3 SCC 557 — law declared by Supreme Court operates retrospectively unless otherwise specified.
• Mirza Fahim Beg v. Kahkasha Anjum, First Appeal No.322 of 2018 (MP HC, 09.05.2018) — triple talaq suits not maintainable post Shayara Banu.
• Showkat Hussain v. Nazia Jeelani, 2019 SCC OnLine J&K 892.
The rejection was based on substantive invalidity — not forum incompetence.
Thus, Civil Judge (Junior Division) clearly possesses jurisdiction to adjudicate:
• Validity of talaq
• Invalidity of triple talaq
• Declaratory relief concerning marital status
V. Muslim Husband’s Right to Sue for Dissolution
The Telangana High Court in Mohammed Shahed Pasha v. Amreen Khatoon, C.R.P. No.4066 of 2025 (14.11.2025), set aside a docket order returning a dissolution suit filed by a Muslim husband.
The Court relied upon:
• Section 7 Explanation (a) of the Family Courts Act
• Rule 5(d)(vii) of the A.P. Family Courts Rules, 2005
• Mohammad Shah v. Smt. Chandani Begum, First Appeal No.1199 of 2022 (MP HC, 07.01.2025)
It held that no express statutory bar prevents a Muslim husband from instituting dissolution proceedings and that denial of forum would render him remediless.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court emphasized that Muslim personal law disputes must be procedurally adjudicated under the Family Courts Act framework and relevant rules, without discriminatory exclusion.
This confirms access-to-justice as a jurisdictional principle.
VI. Transfer Jurisdiction and Implicit Competence
The Andhra Pradesh High Court in Dudekula Fathima v. Shaik Saida Vali, Transfer C.M.P. No.51 of 2025 (03.04.2025), transferred a divorce case to the Principal Junior Civil Judge.
A High Court exercising power under Section 24 CPC would not transfer proceedings to a court lacking jurisdiction.
Similarly, the Supreme Court in Karima Bibi v. S.K. Mustafa, Transfer Petition (Civil) No.1698 of 2023 (20.09.2023), entertained transfer of restitution proceedings pending before a Civil Judge (Junior Division).
Implicit recognition of jurisdiction flows from these orders.
VII. Family Court Exclusivity: Madras Clarifications
The Madras High Court in:
• I. Ummusalma v. S.B. Syed Jaffar, C.R.P. No.1066 of 2023 (13.12.2023),
• Ameerkhan v. Anisha, C.R.P.(PD)(MD) No.1745 of 2025 (25.06.2025),
clarified that exclusion under Sections 7 and 8 of the Family Courts Act operates only where a Family Court exists territorially. In its absence, ordinary civil courts retain jurisdiction.
VIII. Maintenance Proceedings: Incidental Divorce Determination
Courts under Section 125 CrPC determine validity of divorce incidentally. It is settled law that:
If alleged divorce is not effected in accordance with law, the wife continues to be entitled to maintenance and curtailment on assumption of divorce is impermissible.
If a Magistrate may determine divorce validity incidentally, a Civil Judge (Junior Division) may do so directly.
IX. Gauhati High Court Perspective: A Contextual Reading
The Gauhati High Court’s observation that in absence of Family Court, jurisdiction lies with the Principal Civil Court must be understood in statutory context.
Where statutes expressly confer District Court jurisdiction (Indian Divorce Act, Special Marriage Act), such limitation stands.
However, in Muslim personal law:
• No statute confers District Court exclusivity.
• Section 5 Shariat Act not revived (AIR 1963 AP 459).
• Section 9 CPC governs.
• Section 15 CPC directs filing before lowest competent court.
Thus, extending District Court exclusivity absent statutory mandate is doctrinally unsustainable.
X. Integrated Jurisdictional Position
The cumulative legal position is supported by:
• Syed Shamsuddin v. Munira Begum — AIR 1963 AP 459
• Balram Yadav v. Fulmaniya Yadav — (2016) 13 SCC 308
• Shayara Banu v. Union of India — (2017) 9 SCC 1
• Shaik Jareena v. Shaik Dariyavali — CRP 2477/2019 (AP HC, 2023)
• Mohammed Shahed Pasha v. Amreen Khatoon — CRP 4066/2025 (Telangana HC)
• Mohammad Shah v. Chandani Begum — FA 1199/2022 (MP HC)
• I. Ummusalma v. S.B. Syed Jaffar — Madras HC (2023)
• Ameerkhan v. Anisha — Madras HC (2025)
• Dudekula Fathima v. Shaik Saida Vali — AP HC (2025)
• Karima Bibi v. S.K. Mustafa — SC (2023)
Conclusion
There is:
• No revived statutory District Court exclusivity under Muslim personal law.
• No express bar under the Shariat Act or Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act.
• A clear mandate under Sections 9 and 15 CPC.
• Conditional territorial ouster under the Family Courts Act only.
Therefore, a Civil Judge (Junior Division) possesses jurisdiction to adjudicate:
• Dissolution of Muslim marriage
• Validity or invalidity of talaq
• Khula
• Mubaraat
• Restitution of conjugal rights
• Declaratory marital status
This conclusion is doctrinally consistent, statutorily grounded, and judicially supported.
