The main legal point established in the judgment is the recognition of Gandharva Form of Marriage under Hindu Manipuri customs and its implications on the jurisdiction of the Family Court.

JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

Heard Mr. Kh. Mani Singh, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant as well as Ms. I. Lenibala, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.3.2016 passed in Judl.Misc.(Injunction) Case No. 346 of 2015 arising out of Mat.(Injunction) Suit No. 5 of 2015 by Principal Judge, Family Court, Manipur whereby and whereunder exparte injunction granted on 19.12.2015 restraining the defendant no.1/appellant from performing marriage with defendant no.2, was made absolute.

3. Before adverting to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, facts of the case needs to be taken notice of which are as follows:

The plaintiff/respondent was having love affairs with defendant/appellant, Kh. Suranjit Singh, an employee of HDFC Bank. Since they were having love affairs since long they decided to flee from home. As per the plan, while the plaintiff/respondent was standing in front of the gate of her aunt at about at about 2.30 PM on 10.12.2014, defendant/appellant came with a Maruti Car and made plaintiff/respondent to sit in the Car forcibly and by closing the mouth the appellant drove away the car and brought to Khuman-Eco-Park. There the defendant kept the plaintiff inside the quarter and forcibly raped her without her consent and threatened not to disclose to any one. The defendant did establish physical relationship with the intention to live as husband and wife. Further case is that in the intervening night of 10.12.2014/11.12.2014, in order to observe Nupi Thinba (part of the customary marriage) the defendant and family members took the plaintiff to the parental home where both parents of the defendant as well as plaintiff agreed to have marriage in between them. Thereafter, in order to have Mangol Kaba, the mother of the defendant no.1 as well as their family members came to the house of the plaintiff on 2.2.2015 where the mother of the defendant proposed to the father of the plaintiff to give plaintiff in marriage. The father of the plaintiff accepted the proposal. Thereafter they decided to have marriage ceremony in the month of March, 2016. The final date of the marriage was proposed to be fixed by the middle of December, 2015. Meanwhile on 9.12.2015 plaintiff received information that the defendant/appellant has eloped another girl (defendant no.2) with the intention to marry her. On getting such information, the plaintiff/respondent lodged a case with the Women Police Station, Imphal West and expressed her apprehension that the defendant no.1 has done that to solemnize marriage with her. Apart from lodging the criminal case, the plaintiff/respondent filed an injunction suit bearing Mat.(Injunction) Suit No.5 of 2015 wherein following reliefs were sought for:

(a) A decree declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to marry with the defendant no.1 at her option;

(b) A decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant no.1 from performing marriage with the defendantno.2 without the consent of the plaintiff;

(c) Any other reliefs as to this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper and cost for the Suit.

4. Subsequently, a separate application was filed for grant of temporary injunction, which was registered as Jud. Misc.(Injunction) Case No.346 of 2015. On such application, interim injunction was granted on 19.12.2015 whereby defendant no.1/appellant was restrained from marrying defendant no.2. At the same time, notice was issued to the defendant. Pursuant to the notice issued to the defendant, the defendant did appear and filed an application for vacating the said order. While the said matter was pending adjudication, the defendant/appellant approached to this court by filing Matrimonial application No.3 of 2016 praying therein to set aside the order granting temporary injunction on the plea that order granting interim injunction is without jurisdiction. However, the said appeal was disposed of by this Court directing the defendant/appellant t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document