Sangeeta Begum vs Ashique Choudhury
2025 Latest Caselaw 1082 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Sangeeta Begum vs Ashique Choudhury on 16 July, 2025

                                                                        Page No.# 1/2

GAHC010152032025




                                                                 undefined

                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
     (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                  Case No. : CRP(IO)/261/2025

            SANGEETA BEGUM
            W/O ASHIQUE CHOUDHURI, D/O MAJIBUR RAHMAN, R/O GARIGAON,
            BEZPARA, P.O.- GARIGAON, GUWAHATI, P.S.- JALUKBARI, PIN-781012,
            DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM

            VERSUS

            ASHIQUE CHOUDHURY
            S/O ATOWAR RAHMAN, R/O SATMILE, P.O.- JALUKBARI, P.S.- JALUKBARI,
            PIN-781014, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM


Advocate for the Petitioner   : G UDDIN, P ADHIKARI,MR M HAQUE

Advocate for the Respondent : ,


                                   BEFORE
                      HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
                                   ORDER

16.07.2025

Heard Mr. G. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. In this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 of the CPC, the petitioner has challenged the correctness or otherwise of the order dated 03.04.2025, passed by the learned Principal Judge Family Court No. 1, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati (trial court hereinafter), in FC (Civil) Case No. 534/2018.

Page No.# 2/2

3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order dated 03.04.2025, the learned trial court had held that calling the Marriage Officer, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati, to ascertain the age of the petitioner will serve no purpose.

4. Mr. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial court first allowed the petition filed by the petitioner for summoning the Marriage Officer, in the FC (Civil) Case No. 534/2018. But, he fails to produce the said order, vide which the learned trial court at first allowed the petition filed by the petitioner.

5. Accordingly, it is provided that the learned counsel for the petitioner shall produce the said order vide which the learned trial court at first allowed the petition filed by the petitioner for summoning the Marriage Officer.

6. Mr. Uddin further submits that the case is fixed today for judgment and if the judgment is pronounced, then this petition would become infructuous.

7. Considering the aforesaid submission of Mr. Uddin, it is provide that till next date, further proceeding of FC (Civil) Case No. 534/2018 stands stayed.

8. List the matter on 21.07.2025.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant