Family Courts possess exclusive jurisdiction over matrimonial disputes regardless of the personal law governing the parties.

1. This present appeal has been filed under S.19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 , for setting aside the Order dated 05.09.2023 passed by the learned Judge, Udaipur, Tripura, in Case No. T.S.(RCR) 20 of 2023.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent, both belonging to the Islamic (Sunni sect) religion, was solemnized on 14.03.2022 according to Muslim rites at the residence of the respondent's father in Udaipur Town, in the presence of relatives from both parties.

3. The appellant and the respondent lived together as husband and wife at the residence of the appellant's father in the village of West Khilpara. Thereafter, on 18.08.2022, the respondent left for her father's house, stating that she would return within 5 to 6 days.

4. After returning from her father's house, after about 10 days, the respondent began refusing cohabitation with the appellant on flimsy grounds, which led to discord between the respondent and the appellant. The respondent neglected to maintain the conjugal relationship with the appellant and finally left the appellant's father's house in October 2022.

5. At the instance of the appellant, a panchayat meeting was held on 22.05.2023 in the presence of the respondent to resolve the discord between the appellant and the respondent. During the meeting, the respondent refused to live with the appellant and to continue the marital relationship without any reasonable ground.

6. In light of the above situation, the appellant filed a suit before the learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur, District Gomati, Tripura, against the respondent for the restoration of conjugal rights, as permitted under S.281 of Mohammedan Law. This was registered as Case No. TS (RCR) 20 of 2023.

7. By passing an order dated 05.09.2023, learned Judge, Family Court without admitting the suit dismissed it. The impugned order is quoted below: -
"As it appears that the plaintiff belongs to Mohameddan community for which the personal law is governed under the Sharia, hence, the suit is not maintainable in this Court and passing a judgment in the opinion of the Court shall be a transgressing the limits of its jurisdiction since at the time of passing the judgment issues shall have to be formulated and to be decided on different aspects therein. Hence the suit is dismissed without contest, being not maintainable."

8. Hence, this appeal was filed for setting aside the impugned order and for issuing directions to the trial court to restore the suit to its file and dispose of it according to law.

9. Heard Mr. D.K. Daschoudhury, learned counsel appearing for the appellant - husband, as well as Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - wife.

10. Mr. D.K. Daschoudhury, learned counsel for the appellant, drew the Court's attention to S.281 of Mohammedan Law and S.7 of the Family Courts Act. He argued that the case is maintainable and should be remanded to the lower Court for a fresh hearing on its merits, asserting that the Court has jurisdiction and the application is valid.

11. On the other hand, Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respondent - wife, submitted that the matter had been settled amicably between the parties, making the issue academic. However, Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the appellant - husband, denied this claim and insisted that a decision on the merits was necessary.

12. Mr. Roy Barman, learned Senior Counsel, further contended that the trial Court's order was corre