ORDER :

Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been preferred by the petitioner-wife against the impugned judgment and order dated 23.09.2016 passed by the High Court of Meghalaya in Criminal Revision Petition No.3 of 2016, whereby the High Court allowed the said revision petition and directed the learned Judicial Magistrate, Shillong, to remand the case to the District Council, East Khasi Hills, to adjudicate the matter independently.

3. The appellant-wife is a tribal belonging to Panar tribe and resident of Jowai, West Jaintia Hills District which falls under the jurisdiction of Jaintia Hills Autonomous District Council. On the other hand, the respondent-husband is a tribal belonging to the East Khasi Hills District which falls under the jurisdiction Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council.

4. Initially, the appellant-wife filed an application for maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, the 'Cr.P.C.') before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Shillong. By order dated 14.03.2016, the learned Magistrate directed the respondent-husband to pay an interim maintenance of Rs.7,000/- in favour of the appellant and issued notice to him. Thereafter, on 02.06,2016, the learned Magistrate, Shillong, rejected the preliminary objection raised by the respondent-husband that the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Shillong did not have the requisite jurisdiction to try the matter on account of the fact that the dispute was between two tribal individuals. The respondent-husband challenged the said orders of the learned Magistrate by filing revision petition before the High Court which was allowed in terms of the above. Being aggrieved, the appellant-wife preferred this appeal.

5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusal of the record, we find that the issue of jurisdiction is covered by paragraph (4) under the heading "Provisions as to the Administration of Tribal Areas in the States of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram" of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution of India under Articles 244(2) and 275(1), which reads as follows :

"4. Administration of justice in autonomous districts and autonomous regions.- (1) The Regional Council for an autonomous region in respect of areas within such region and the District Council for an autonomous district in respect of areas within the district other than those which are under the authority of the Regional Councils, if any, within the district may constitute village councils or courts for the trial of suits and cases between the parties all of whom belong to Scheduled Tribes within such areas, other than suits and cases to which the provisions of sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 5 of this Schedule apply, to the exclusion of any court in the State, and may appoint suitable persons to be members of such village councils or presiding officers of such courts, and may also appoint such officers as may be necessary for the administration of the laws made under paragraph 3 of this Schedule." (Emphasis supplied)

As a result, a District Council, constituted for the purpose of deciding disputes, has jurisdiction only in respect of tribals who belong to the scheduled tribes within such area for which the said District Council is constituted. It would have no jurisdiction where one of the parties belongs to another area which is under the jurisdiction of another District Council.

6. Thus, we find that East Khasi Hills District Council would have no jurisdiction to determine the present dispute which is between the appellant-wife who belongs to a tribe of Jaintia Hills District Council and the respondent-husband who belongs to East Khasi Hills District Council. A similar question has been decided by the High Court of Gauhati (Shillong Bench) in Criminal Reference No.1 of 2004 titled as "State of Meghalaya v. Richard Lyngdoh".

7. In such a situation, the courts constituted under ordinary law, in the instant case the Code of Criminal Procedure, would have jurisdi