Plaint cannot be rejected for failing to plead specific dates of conciliation proceedings in matrimonial disputes.

The respondent/husband filed a suit (O.S.No.61 of 2023) before the Family Court, Sivagangai, seeking a declaration that his marriage to the petitioner/wife was dissolved via three pronouncements of Talaq made on 17.05.2023, 08.06.2023, and 19.07.2023.

The husband alleged that mediation efforts by well-wishers failed before he proceeded with the Talaqs.

The petitioner/wife filed an interlocutory application (I.A.No.6 of 2025) under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC to reject the plaint, contending it failed to disclose a cause of action because the husband did not specifically plead the details of the pre-Talaq conciliation process.

The Trial Court dismissed the application, leading to this Civil Revision Petition.

1. Whether the plaint must be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for failure to disclose a cause of action if specific dates and details of the conciliation process are not pleaded.

2. Whether the validity of the Talaq, including the adequacy of conciliation and adherence to statutory intervals, can be determined at the stage of rejection of the plaint.

Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which mandates the rejection of a plaint where it does not disclose a cause of action.

"Cause of action" refers to the bundle of facts necessary to support the prayer, but does not require the pleading of evidence or every minute date under Order VII Rule 1(e).

Shayara Bano & Others v. Union of India (2017) 9 SCC 1 regarding the necessity of conciliation before Talaq, while distinguishing between the requirement to plead material facts versus the requirement to prove them through evidence.

The High Court observed that the respondent had indeed pleaded the material facts constituting the cause of action, specifically the friction in matrimonial life, the unsuccessful mediation efforts in paragraph 26 of the plaint, and the specific dates the Talaqs were pronounced.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that the lack of specific names of conciliators or exact timings of mediation violated Order VII Rule 1(e), clarifying that pleadings need only contain material facts, not the evidence used to prove them.

The Court reasoned that whether a "proper" conciliation occurred according to Mohammedan Law and whether the mandatory time intervals were observed are matters of evidence to be adjudicated during the trial, not at the preliminary stage of a motion to reject the plaint.

The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition, affirming the Trial Court's order.