Plaint Disclosing Cause of Action for Cruelty Cannot Be Rejected by Adjudicating Merits at Inchoate Stage

The appellant (husband) filed a matrimonial suit for divorce against the respondent (wife). The plaint alleged instances of mental torture and derogatory remarks

In paragraph 30 of the plaint, the appellant stated he left the matrimonial home on January 23, 2024, the same day the petition was filed, citing an inability to endure further torture

The Trial Court (Additional District Judge, Seventh Court at Barasat) rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), holding that no cause of action was disclosed because the petitioner admitted to deserting the respondent and the allegations of torture were deemed insufficient

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in law by rejecting the plaint on the ground that it failed to disclose a cause of action under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC

2. Whether the veracity of allegations in a plaint and the merits of the cause of action can be adjudicated at the stage of an application for rejection of the plaint

The court applied Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which mandates the rejection of a plaint if it does not disclose a cause of action

The court relied on the principle that at the stage of Order VII Rule 11, the court must only look at the averments in the plaint as a whole to determine if a cause of action is disclosed, rather than adjudicating on the veracity or merits of the allegations, which is a matter for trial

The court further recognized that consistent derogatory remarks can constitute "cruelty" as a ground for divorce under matrimonial law

The High Court found that the Trial Court exceeded its jurisdiction by evaluating the merits of the appellant's claims at the threshold stage.

The Court noted that even if a suit is filed on the same day a spouse leaves the home, such an occurrence is not "absurd" and its truth must be tested through evidence, not summarily dismissed

Regarding the Trial Court’s finding that the husband "deserted" the wife, the High Court clarified that the plaint specifically alleged the husband was forced to leave due to torture, which in itself constitutes a cause of action for divorce

The Court criticized the Trial Court for dismissing derogatory remarks as insufficient, stating that consistent verbal abuse can legally amount to cruelty

The High Court concluded that a thorough reading of the plaint in its entirety clearly disclosed a cause of action

The High Court allowed the appeal (FAT No. 50 of 2026) and set aside the judgment and decree dated January 22, 2026, which had rejected the plaint

The suit (Matrimonial Suit No. 189 of 2025) was restored, and the Trial Court was directed to proceed with a full-fledged trial on the merits after allowing parties to adduce evidence

No order as to costs was made