Back
2022 Supreme(Gau) 482
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Mrs. Neikhol Changsan @ Neikhol Halolai - Appellant
Versus
Mr. Thongkomang Armstrong Changsan - Respondent
CRP No. 209 of 2015
Decided On : 30-06-2022
For the Appellant : Mr. H.S. Kalsi.
For the Respondent:Mr. A.K. Das, Senior Advocate Mr. R. J. Barua.
For the Amicus Curiae :Mr. T.J. Mahanta, Senior Advocate.
Point of Law : Scope and ambit of exercising power and jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of Constitution involves a duty on this Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within bounds of their authority and to see that they do duty expected or required of them in a legal manner.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 226/227 – Family Courts Act, 1984 – Section 19 (1) –Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Divorce Act, 1969 – Section 3 (3), 3 (4) 10, 55, 14, – Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 – condoning delay - Power of High Courts to issue certain writs - petitioner thereupon filed a matrimonial appeal under Section 55 of Divorce Act, 1969 read with Section 19 (1) of Family Courts Act, 1984 challenging order passed by learned Judge, Subordinate Autonomous Council Court - As there was a delay of one year, an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 was filed for condoning delay - Matrimonial appeal filed before court was not registered but allotted a filing number and application for condoning delay was registered – Court is not vested with unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within limits of jurisdiction of subordinate courts or tribunals, but when there is serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, this Court under Article 227 of Constitution, being a superintending Court has to interfere, else a grave injustice would be caused. (Para 30)
Findings of the Court :
Court, on basis of above observation would like to take up question of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of Constitution and maintainability of instant petition - Scope and ambit of exercising power and jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of Constitution involves a duty on this Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within bounds of their authority and to see that they do duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. Though this Court is not vested with unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within limits of jurisdiction of subordinate courts or tribunals, but when there is serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, this Court under Article 227 of Constitution, being a superintending Court has to interfere, else a grave injustice would be caused.
Result : Petition disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. H. S. Kalsi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. A. K. Das, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. R. J. Barua, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. I have also heard Mr. T. J. Mahanta, the learned Amicus Curiae appointed by this Court.
2. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 23.02.2011 passed in Title Suit No.12/2011 by the learned Judge, Subordinate Autonomous Council Court, Dima Hasao, Haflong, Assam whereby the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent solemnized on 25.05.1994, at the Presbyterian Church, Songpijang (Ngalsong) in presence of the minister, Shri Rev. Letjalam Lienthang was dissolved with immediate effect.
3. The facts of the instant case is that the petitioner got married to the respondent on 25.05.1994 at Ngalsong Presbyterian Church, Songpijang, Haflong in the district of Dima Hasao in Assam as per the Christian rituals and the marriage has been recorded in records being maintained by the Church. The said aspect of the matter would be apparent from the certificate issued by the Executive Secretary, Ngalsong Presbytery annexed at Annenxure-1 to the application. Out of their wedlock, a female child was born on 22.01.1996. After the marriage, the respondent cleared the UPSC examination and succeeded in getting a Government job in the Indian Foreign Service. In the year 1997, he went for training at Mussoorie, Uttarakhand. After the training, the respondent was posted at Delhi and the petitioner along with her minor daughter shifted to Delhi and was staying together in the accommodation provided by the Government to the respondent. The respondent was posted in the Indian Embassy at Tokyo, Japan in 1997 and the petitioner and her minor daughter shifted to Tokyo, Japan along with the respondent. It has been further stated in the application that the petitioner accompanied the respondent whenever he was transferred.
4. In the year 2007, the respondent got transferred as Regional Passport Officer at Guwahati and he along with the petitioner resided at Guwahati. Certain disputes arose between the petitioner and the respondent and the petitioner claims that she has been physically and mentally tortured by the respondent. On 4th September, 2010, the respondent informed the petitioner that on account of some urgent official work at Delhi he had to go to Delhi and since then the respondent did not return. The petitioner in the month of October, 2010 received a call from the Gaonbura of Songpijang Village, Haflong requesting her to visit the village but no reason was disclosed for calling her to village Songpijang. The petitioner accordingly reached her village at 1:00 PM in the month of October and that very evening, the petitioner went to meet the Gaonbura and the petitioner was informed that a meeting was taking place wherein the petitioner has to attend. It is further mentioned in the application that less than a dozen people of the village having a population of 2000 plus met in the evening and they started discussing regarding the petitioner’s matrimonial life. On enquiry, to the surprise of the petitioner, she came to learn that the respondent wanted to dissolve the marriage for which the said meeting was called for. The petitioner opposed the same and she along with her relatives, without giving any consent left the meeting and thereafter the petitioner returned back to Guwahati. It is the further case of the petitioner that from the month of November, 2010, the respondent stopped paying the rent of the house at Guwahati for which the petitioner started facing financial hurdles due to the sudden liabilities piling up. On account of non-payment of the rent to the landlord, the petitioner was served notice on 06.03.2011 by the landlord for vacating the house. The petitioner se
