TRISHNA BORUAH KONWAR Vs. ALAKANANDA DEVI KONWAR AND ANR
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Trishna Boruah Konwar
Alakananda Devi Konwar And Anr
Click here to view full judgement.
Prasanta Kumar Deka, J. -
(1.) Heard Mr. P. Mahanta, the learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. M. K. Choudhury, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Barkataki, the learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) This second appeal is preferred by the defendant/appellant No.1 thereby impugning the judgment and decree dated 15.09.2016 passed in Title Appeal No.3/2016 by the learned Civil Judge, Tinsukia. The said First Appellate Court's judgment arose out of the judgment and decree passed in Title suit No.18/2013 passed by the learned Munsiff No.2, Tinsukia dated 23.12.2015. The plaintiff/respondent filed the suit for declaration of the marriage dated 22.02.2013 between the defendant and the proforma defendant is illegal, null and void amongst other reliefs including permanent injunction against the present defendant/appellant. The proforma defendant is also the husband of plaintiff/respondent and she is the first wife. The suit was resisted by the defendant/appellant by stating that the suit is not maintainable in the Court of the learned Munsiff inasmuch as the marriage between the defendant/appellant and the proforma defendant was solemnized under the Special Marriage Act and as such the same ought to have been preferred in the District Judge, Tinsukia. It is the contention of the plaintiff/respondent that during the validity of the marriage between her and the proforma defendant/husband and that too during the lifetime of the plaintiff/respondent, her husband/proforma defendant cannot get married to the defendant/appellant inasmuch as there is a specific bar under the provision of Special Marriage Act. The subsequent marriage between the defendant/appellant and the proforma defendant/husband was not disputed by either of the parties to the marriage. Even then as the defendant/appellant claimed herself to be the legally married wife of the proforma defendant/husband, as such the plaintiff/respondent, in order to get her status as the married wife of the proforma defendant/husband affirmed, filed the suit seeking reliefs hereinabove mentioned.
(3.) The learned Munsiff No.2 at Tinsukia, on the basis of the pleadings, framed issues and amongst others, whether the suit is maintainable and whether the marriage between the defendant/appellant and the proforma defendant/husband is illegal, null and void and the plaintiff is entitled to get the decree as prayed for. The learned trial court held the Issue No.2 in the negative, i.e., against the plaintiff/respondent holding that the said Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit inasmuch as the relief claimed by the plaintiff/respondent is within the purview of Section 24 (1) (i) of the Special Marriage Act and as such the learned District Judge has the exclusive jurisdiction as per Section 31 of the said Special Marriage Act. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.