HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW FIRST APPEAL No. - 207 of 2025 Court No. - 2 HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the order dated 17.11.2025. 2. This Appeal has been filed against the impugned Judgment and Order dated 17.11.2025 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lakhimpur Kheri, in Case No.96/2021 [Dheeraj Singh Rana Vs. Bhagyshree] under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, by which the application 28GA-2 under order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. filed by the appellant has been rejected wrongly and illegally. 3. The order impugned, it has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the learned Trial Court has wrongly placed reliance upon objections filed by the appellant and for Application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act wherein an averment had been made that the Appellant-Bhagryshri, got married to the Respondent- Dheeraj Singh Rana, in accordance with the Rights and Rituals as prescribed under the Hindu Tradition and has rejected the appellant's application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 4. It has been submitted that the Respondent had filed a Divorce Petition on grounds of cruelty under Section 13 to which the appellant had filed objections under Order 7 Rule 11 saying that the Family Court had no jurisdiction as Hindu Marriage Act was not Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Shresth Agarwal Counsel for Respondent(s) : Bhagyshri .....Appellant(s) Dheeraj Singh Rana .....Respondent(s) applicable on the appellant and the Respondent. Both of them belonged to Scheduled Tribe (Tharu) and the Respondent in his plaint had stated that the wedding rituals were in accordance with the customs and traditions of the Tribe concerned. 5. It has been submitted on the basis of Law declared by the Supreme Court that while considering the application under Order 7 Rule 11 for rejection of plaint, the Trial Court must only consider the contents of the plaint and not any averment made in any of the affidavit exchanged between the parties. The counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon ELDECO Housing and Industries Limited Vs. Ashok Vidyarthi and Others reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1033. 6. We have perused the order impugned dated 17.11.2025 and we find that after recording the contents of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the Trial Court in its order dated 17.11.2025 has considered the contents of the Application made by the appellant under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and also stated that since the appellant herself had stated that the marriage took place in accordance with Hindu Rights and Rituals, The Hindu Marriage Act was applicable and such plaint was not filed in a Court having no jurisdiction and hence rejected her Application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 7. We find the order dated 17.11.2025 has been passed taking into account more than what has been said in the plaint filed by the Respondent under Section 13. 8. The order impugned dated 17.11.2025 is set aside. 9. The matter is remitted to the Trial Court to consider afresh the appellant's application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. 10. Accordingly, the First Appeal stands allowed. December 2, 2025 / N.PAL FAPL No. 207 of 2025 2 (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) Digitally signed by :- NARESH PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench