ORDER :

Heard Mrs. S.P. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M.D. Bora, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for respondent No.2 and Mr. A.I. Uddin, the learned counsel for respondent No.3, Mr. A. Ganguly, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and Mr. T.H. Hazarika, the learned counsel for the respondent No.5.

2. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the impugned action on part of the Muslim Marriage and Divorce Registrar & Sadar Kazi, Guwahati (respondent No.3) in registering and issuing ahsan talak to the petitioner.

3. The case projected by the petitioner is that she was married to the respondent No.4 herein on 10.12.1996. It is projected that on 20.07.2016, the petitioner had received a call from the respondent No.3, asking her to come to his office on 30.07.2016 and upon appearing, she was served with a copy of prayer made by the respondent No.4 to the respondent No.3 for amicable settlement of the marital dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No.4. Accordingly, the petitioner had submitted her written statement. On 17.09.2016, the petitioner was again called by the respondent No.3 and upon appearing, the respondent No.3 had proposed to the petitioner that if she divorced the respondent No.4, she would be paid a considerable amount of money. The said offer was refused by the petitioner. Thereafter on 13.10.2016, the police personnel from Panbazar P.S. served a talaknama to the petitioner, sent under the seal of the respondent No.3, by which the respondent No.4 had declared his first talak to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for directing the respondent No.2 and 3 to cancel, recall or otherwise forbear from giving effect to the impugned registration of ahsan talak and first talak dated 22.09.2016 and to declare the entire process as void and inoperative.

4. All the learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.2 to 5 have made their respective submissions on the various aspects of ahsan talak and first talak. The points argued is not required to be elaborated because the issue raised by the petitioner is seen to be squarely covered by the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Meriza Khatun Vs. State of Assam, 2018 (4) GLT 380, which is heavily relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The relevant paragraphs 11 to 15, 20, 21, 27 and 28 is quoted herein below:-

“11. Mr. Borpatragohain has cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shayara Bano Vs. Union of India, reported in (2017) 9 SCC 1. The learned Advocate General, in no uncertain terms, has submitted that the respondent No.3 was acting arbitrarily and without any authority of law in issuing the notices. Drawing the attention of the Court to Para 7 of the affidavit of respondent No.3, he has submitted that it appears to him that the respondent No.3 was taking cudgels on behalf of respondent No.4 and had taken a biased and partisan stand against the petitioner. He submits that this Court can go into the question of validity of the talak given by the respondent No.4.

12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record.

13. Kazi Act provides that whenever it appears to the State that any considerable number of the Muhammadans resident in any local area desire that one or more Kazis should be appointed for such local area, the State Government may, if it thinks fit, after consulting the principal Muhammadan residents of such local area, select one or more fit persons and appoint him or them to be Kazis for such local area.

14. From the short title of Kazi Act, it appears that it extended in the first instance, only to the territories administered by the Governor of Fort Saint George in Council. By virtue of amendment, it is also provided that the Government of any other State may from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette, extend it to the