Meghalaya High Court
Shri. Yousuf Ali vs Smti Shaista Yasmin on 16 April, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 MEG 1
Author: S.R.Sen
Bench: S.R.Sen
THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
CRP. No. 16 of 2016
Shri. Yousuf Ali,
S/o Late Ashik Ali,
R/o 7 JB Cantonment,
Jhalupara, Shillong,
East Khasi Hills District,
Meghalaya.
... Petitioner
-Versus-
Smti Shaista Yasmin,
W/o Shri Yousuf Ali,
R/o 7 JB Cantonment,
Jhalupara, Shillong,
East Khasi Hills District,
Meghalaya.
...Respondent
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.SEN
CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)
For the petitioner : Mr. K.Paul, Adv.
For the respondents : Ms. Tenzin Yangkyi, Adv.
Date of hearing : 16-04-2018
Date of Judgment : 16-04-2018
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
1. Heard Mr. K.Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. Tenzin Yangkyi, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The petitioner's case in a nutshell is that:
"This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the Order dated 23.08.2013 passed by the 1 Learned District Judge, Shillong, in Misc. Case No. 11 (H) 12 arising out of Mat (Conj) Case No. 6 (H) 2012, renumbered as 14 (H) 2014 (New) thereby rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner challenging the maintainability of the Mat (Conj) 14 (H) 2014.
The brief facts of the case are that the Respondent as Petitioner has filed an application before the Learned District Judge, Shillong for restitution of conjugal rights registered as Mat (Conj) Case No. 6 (H) 2012 alongwith a Misc. Case No. 11 (H) 12 under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure with a prayer to restrain the Opposite Party/ the petitioner herein from contracting the second marriage. The Learned Trial Court vide order dated 25.04.2013 granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the Petitioner from contracting a second marriage which was later made absolute vide order dated 23.08.2014 without appreciating the fact that the marriage between the parties has already been dissolved on 12.03.2010 as per Mohammedan law governing the Petitioner and the Respondent and that same has been approved by the Shillong Quresh Panchayat on 16.07.2013.
Being highly dissatisfied and aggrieved with the Order dated 23.08.2014 passed by the Learned District Judge, Shillong in Misc. Case No. 11 (H) 12 arising out of Mat (Conj) Case No. 6 (H) 2012, renumbered as 14 (H) 2014 the Humble Petitioner is approaching this Hon'ble Court for redressal of his genuine grievance."
3. Mr. K.Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit before the learned District Judge, Shillong is not maintainable and the same question was raised, but learned District Judge, Shillong failed to appreciate the issue. Hence, this instant revision petition before this Court.
4. On the other hand, Ms. Tenzin Yangkyi, learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner instead of approaching this Hon'ble High Court.
2
5. After hearing the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties, I am of the considered view that the matter can be decided by the District Judge, Shillong as to whether it is maintainable or not. While deciding the matter, the District Judge, Shillong will also have to see whether the Talaq is valid in the light of the recent judgment given by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as to explore whether there is a possibility to adjudicate the matter by an alternative forum.
6. With this observation and direction, this revision petition stands disposed of and is remanded back to the learned District Judge, Shillong to decide the matter accordingly.
7. Registry to send the copy of this order to District Judge, Shillong to do the needful.
CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING) S.Rynjah 3