Gauhati High Court
R.K. Purnima Singh vs R.K. Ranjit Singh on 7 June, 2024
Author: M. Choudhury
Bench: Manish Choudhury
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010172482023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2921/2023
R.K. PURNIMA SINGH
W/O SHRI R.K. RANJIT SINGH,
D/O LATE NILAI SINGH,
VILL.- KHALILPAR,
P.O.- DUDPATIL PART- IV, P.O.- SILCHAR, P.S.- SILCHAR, DIST.- CACHAR,
ASSAM.
VERSUS
R.K. RANJIT SINGH
S/O LATE CHANDRANI SINGH,
VILL.- RUPAIBALI,
P.O.- HAZARIGRAM, P.S.- LAKHIPUR, DIST.- CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 788101.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R CHOUDHURY
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. M H SAIKIA
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
ORDER
Date : 07.06.2024
(M. Choudhury,J)
Heard Mr. H.R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. M.H. Saikia, learned
Page No.# 2/3
counsel for the opposite party.
2. On perusal of the case papers, it is noticed that the opposite party as the petitioner
had earlier preferred a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Cachar at Silchar ['the Family Court', for short] seeking
dissolution of his marriage solemnized with the respondent therein, that is, the applicant
herein. The said petition was registered and numbered as F.C. [Civil] Case no. 43/2009 [Sri
R.K. Ranjit Singha vs. Smti. R.K. Purnima Singha]. The learned Family Court by a Judgment
and Order dated 17.08.2011 decreed the case on contest dissolving the marriage solemnized
between the parties on 09.05.2003 forthwith. The petitioner therein was directed to pay an
amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the respondent therein as permanent alimony within a period of
one month.
3. On perusal of the Judgment and Order dated 17.08.2011, it further transpires that the
respondent therein, that is, the applicant herein contested the case by filing written
statement. In the said proceedings, the petitioner examined two witnesses including himself
and the respondent examined herself as D.W.1. Thereafter, the learned Family Court heard
arguments advanced by both the parties.
4. The instant application is preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking
condonation of delay of 3649 days in preferring the connected appeal challenging the
Judgment and Order dated 17.08.2011 passed in F.C. [Civil] Case no. 43/2009. The applicant
is the appellant in the connected appeal, which is yet to be registered, has assailed the
Judgment and Decree dated 17.08.2011.
5. It has been averred that the cause of action to prefer the connected appeal has arisen
on receipt of notice from the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Cachar at Silchar in
connection with F.C. [Civil] Case no. 177/2023. A copy of the petition filed in connection with
F.C. [Civil] Case no. 177/2023 is annexed hereto as Annexure-2. From Annexure-2, it
transpires that R.K. Ranjit Singha, that is, the respondent herein has preferred a petition
under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of marriage solemnized
between him and the respondent therein, that is, the applicant herein. In Annexure-2, there
is no mention of the Judgment and Order dated 17.08.2011 passed in F.C. [Civil] Case no.
Page No.# 3/3
43/2009.
6. It is in the above background, the applicant has made the following averments:
2. That the applicant/Appellant begs to state that the Judgement was passed on
17.08.2011. However, the after filing the suit, and after filing of the WS by the
appellant/wife, the matter was amicably settled. The respondent/husband ensured that
the suit would be withdrawn from his active part. The process of reconciliation was
initiated as the respondent/husband agreed to take back the petitioner to his
matrimonial home. To made a trust upon her husband, she was waiting to continue the
matrimonial life, to made understand the petitioner that the suit was withdrawn, the
husband was giving maintenance to her. Recently, the petitioner come to know that the
impugned Judgement and decree, when the husband filed another suit seeking the
decree of divorce filed on 24.04.2023 vide F.C.(Civil) Case No. 177/2023. On knowing
that case, the petitioner known that the earlier judgement and decree dated 17.08.2011
was passed. Thereafter, the petitioner got to know about the passing of the impugned
Judgment and decree dated 17.08.2011. Accordingly, to avail this, the petitioner
applied certified copy on 30.05.2023 which is received on 13.06.2023.
7. The statements and averments made in Paragraph no. 2, quoted above, appear to be
contrary to the proceedings mentioned in the Judgment and Order dated 17.08.2011 passed
in F.C. [Civil] Case no. 43/2009.
8. The applicant shall file an additional affidavit explaining such conflicting situations
emerging from the records.
9. The learned counsel for the opposite party is also required to show cause as to why
the petition registered as F.C. [Civil] Case no. 177/2023 has been filed before the learned
Family Court despite the passing of the Judgment and Order dated 17.08.2011.
10. List the case after 2 [two] weeks.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
