Manisana, J. - (1.)THE facts of the case may briefly be stated. A negotiated marriage of the Petitioner, Nihoto Seema, and the Respondent, Kanili Kini Limi, took place in 1980. The parties are christians. The marriage was solemnised in a local church in the presence of the witnesses, elders and parents of the parties. A daughter was born of their wedlock in the year, 1981. The name of daughter is 'Vni' and she is aged about 2 1/2 at present.
(2.)ON 17.4.85 Respondent, Kanili Kini Limi presented a petition to the Court of the Additional Deputy Commissioner (J) Dimapur, for dissolution of the marriage against the Petitioner Nihoto Sema, under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (for short the "Act") on the ground that the Petitioner has been guilty of adultery coupled with cruelty. In the petition, the Petitioner has prayed for interim custody of the minor child "Vni" pending the hearing of the petition on the ground that the Petitioner, Nihoto Sema, on 22.3.85 took the child 'Vni' away from Nursery Class of Montessori School, Dimapur without the knowledge and consent of the Respondent and" that at the time of the filing of the petition, she was. separated from her child. On 17.4.85, the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner directed the Petitioner to restore the custody of the child, Vni to the Respondent Smt. Kanili Kini Limi on or before 27.4.85 and fixed 16.5.85 for submission of Written Statement of the Petitioner. On 27.4.85 no order was passed and the records show that there is a petition dated 27.4.85 filed by the Petitioner on which there is an endorsement dated 2.5.85 which reads: "Peskar -please put up record on date fixed. The Additional Deputy Commissioner on 29.4.85 passed m order to the effect that it was not known whether the service on the Petitioner bas been properly made or not as he was absent and that the welfare of the child requires expeditious execution of the Court's order for restoring the custody of the child, Vni, to the Respondent. Therefore, he fixed 4.5.85 for the restoration of the custody of the child to the Respondent. The learned Additional Deputy Commissioner on 8.5.85 passed an order allowing the Respondent to personally go upto Alichen and receive the custody of the child from (he Petitioner and directing the Petitioner to hand over the child on or before on 16.5.85. In the said order, the learned Deputy Commissioner also requested the Superintendent of Police, Dimapur, to provide escort to the Respondent Katiili Kini Lirni. Thereafter, the Petitioner hat filed the revision petition in this Court challenging the orders of the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner.
Mr. D.N. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has submitted that the Indian Divorce Act is not in force in Nagaland; that the Additional Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction to pass the interim order under Section 43 of the Act, that assuming that the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner has jurisdiction to pan the order, the impugned order are illegal as they were passed without giving him opportunity of being heard; and that It would not be for the welfare of child to band over the child to the mother who is a business person. The Respondent has controverted the contentions.

(3.)A short question which arises for consideration is whether the Indian Divorce Act is in force in the State of Nagaland Mr. D.N. Choudhury, teamed Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the Naga Hills District was one of the districts of the then Province of Assam. The Naga Hills District was also a part of the Scheduled Districts under the Scheduled Districts Act, 1874. Under Section 3 of the Scheduled Districts Act, the local government by notification in the official Gazette would declare what enactments were actually in force in any of the Scheduled Districts or in any part of such districts. But there was no such notification.
;