CIVIL REVISION No.535 OF 2002 SHAHIN WAFA --- --- Petitioner Versus WAJIH AHMAD --- --- Opposite Party For the petitioner: Mr. Amit Kr.Anand, Advocate. For the opposite party: None P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N.HUSSAIN S.N.Hussain,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appears for the opposite party, although notices have been validly served and the names of his lawyers appear on the daily cause list. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the defendant-petitioner challenging order dated 11.03.2002 passed in Title Suit no.135 of 2001 by which the learned Munsif, Sadar Purnea, rejected the petition of defendant-petitioner under the provision of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’ for the sake of brevity) for dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff-opposite party without any proper cause of action. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiff -opposite party for declaration that plaintiff had already divorced the defendant on 09.06.2001 by pronouncement of three divorce and for other ancillary reliefs. During the pendency of the suit the defendant-petitioner appeared and filed a petition under the provision of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code for dismissing the suit filed by the opposite party without any proper cause of action as the suit was not even maintainable as per the provisions of Mohammedan Law according to which there is no provision for the husband to file a suit for grant of divorce because the husband had absolute right to divorce and the defendant had already admitted the divorce with effect from 18.06.2001. A rejoinder was filed on behalf of the plaintiff on 15.01.2002 against the defendant-petitioner stating that defendant only wants to delay the process of the suit. 2 4. The said petition filed by the defendant has been rejected by the learned court below by the impugned order dated 11.03.2002 on the ground that since the divorce was given by the plaintiff to the defendant in absence of defendant and in the said circumstances, the communication of divorce to the defendant was necessary and when the plaintiff tried to communicate the divorce to the defendant then the plaintiff was threatened by the defendant by false implication and hence in the said circumstances, the plaintiff had no option except to file the suit for confirmation of divorce to the defendant. 5. From the facts and circumstances of the case as well as from the materials on record, including the impugned order, it is quite apparent that under the provisions of Mohammedan law, the husband has absolute authority to divorce his wife and there is no occasion for filing a suit for declaration of divorce. In the instant case when the defendant herself has admitted the divorce with effect from 18.06.2001, there was no dispute left with respect to the factum of divorce and there was no occasion for getting a decree of divorce from the court as divorce had already taken effect prior to the filing of the suit as per the admission of the defendant herself. In the said circumstances, the defendant was quite right in her submission that there was no cause of action for the suit and the plaint had to be rejected under the provision of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. Furthermore, the plaintiff should not be encouraged to harass the defendant even after divorce by dragging her unnecessarily to the court. 6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order of the learned court below suffers from serious illegality and jurisdictional error and is accordingly set aside and this civil revision is allowed with a direction to the learned court below to pass an order afresh in accordance with law keeping in view the aforesaid observations/directions. (S.N.Hussain,J.) Patna High Court, Patna Dated, 23rd April, 2008 Sunil/N.A.F.R