Rintu Barman vs Smti Karabi Pathak on 6 January, 2026

                                                                         Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010053612025




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

                             Case No. : CRP(IO)/94/2025

           RINTU BARMAN
           S/O DHARMA KANTA BARMAN, R/O H.N. 2, MADHABPUR, P.S.-
           NOONMATI, GUWAHATI-781020, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM

           VERSUS

           SMTI KARABI PATHAK
           W/O SRI RINTU BARMAN, D/O LATE DIBAKAR PATHAK, R/O H.N. 2,
           MADHABPUR, P.S.- NOONMATI, GUWAHATI-781020, P/R/O BHASKAR
           NAGAR, ZOO ROAD, P.S.- GEETA NAGAR, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM,
           OFFICE ADDRESS- C/O DIRECTORATE OF INFORMATION AND PUBLIC
           RELATIONS, GUWAHATI-6, P.O.- DISPUR, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM



Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D K BORDOLOI,
Advocate for the Respondent : MR K K MAHANTA (Sr. Advocate), MR D K DAS,MR M
RANA,MR. T ALI,MS N BEGUM




                                 BEFORE
               HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA

                                      ORDER

Date : 06.01.2026

1. Heard Mr. D. K. Bordoloi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. Ali, learned counsel for respondent.

2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has Page No.# 2/6

been filed by the petitioner impugning the order dated 18.07.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. III, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati in F.C. (Civil) Case No. 1256/2023.

3. The brief facts relevant for consideration of the instant revision petition are that the present petitioner, who is the husband of the respondent had filed a divorce application before the Family Court, which has been registered as F.C.(Civil) Case No. 1256/2023. During the pendency of the aforesaid divorce case, the respondent had filed an application bearing No. 1344/2024 on 14.06.2024 praying for installation of an inverter connection in the living room of her matrimonial house and a direction for making arrangement for installation of separate electricity sub-meter in the living room of the respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent after some matrimonial dispute had left the matrimonial home on her own on 16.06.2020. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that thereafter the petitioner went along with his friend to bring the respondent back to her matrimonial home on 17.06.2020. However, she refused to accompany him. It is further submitted that thereafter, after nine months of the said incident, the respondent came to the matrimonial home and occupied one room and there and started living there.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the house in which the petitioner and respondent are presently staying does not belong to the petitioner and it is in the name of the father of the Page No.# 3/6

petitioner who is not a party to the dispute. He further submits that the petitioner does not have any share in the said property. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Trial Court had erred in allowing the petition No. 1344/2024 filed by the respondent for installation of a separate electricity sub-meter in the living room of the respondent in as much as the living room where presently the respondent is staying does not belong to the petitioner and petitioner. He further submits that the electricity meter and electricity connection in the said premises also is in the name of the father of the petitioner. He submits that the Family Court under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act does not have any jurisdiction to issue such direction for installation of meter in the residence which is not in the name of parties to the case.

6. He also submits that along with the said application, the respondent had also filed a counter-claim seeking relief under Section 18, 19, 20, 22, 23 and 26 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and same was rightly rejected by the Trial Court on the ground that the Family Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain an application under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. However, he submits that the Trial Court erred in allowing the petition No. 1344/2024.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent objected to the present petition initially on the ground of maintainability of the present revision petition. He submits that in every order or judgment passed by Family Court is an appealable Page No.# 4/6

order under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act and, therefore, the present revision petition is not maintainable. He further submits that even if it is assumed that the present revision petition is maintainable still it would be barred by limitation inasmuch as the impugned order was passed on 18.7.2024 and the present revision petition has been filed after about eight months. He also submits that as the Trial Court was not wrong in directing the petitioner to install an electricity meter in the name of respondent as there was allegation of disruption and of electricity supply in the living room of the respondent. He further submits that the respondent is ready to bear all the expenses incurred for installing the separate electricity sub-meter in her name in the living room.

8. In reply to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the provision of Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act is not applicable to this case, inasmuch as the order which has been challenged in this revision petition is in the nature of interlocutory order against which no appeal lies.

9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record.

10. This application has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Though, the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has to be exercised very sparingly, however, in cases where it comes to the notice of the Court that the Page No.# 5/6

Court whose order has been challenged before the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction or where there has been gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted, the High Court is supposed to interfere with such an order.

11. In the instant case, though, the Trial Court has rejected the counter-claim made by the respondent under Sections 18, 19, 20, 22, 23 and 26 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 on the ground that said Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain such a petition (Petition No. 1729/2024). However, it allowed the Petition No. 1344/2024, wherein the prayer for installation of inverter and installation of a separate electricity sub- meter in the living room of respondent was prayed for. This Court finds that while allowing the said petition, the Trial Court had not cited any reasons for the same. It has only reflected the submissions of learned counsel for respective parties and allowed the prayer for installation of a separate electric sub-meter in the living room of the respondent.

12. Though, the main dispute between the parties is regarding dissolution of marriage and though the Trial Court had rightly observed that it does not have jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, however, by allowing the installation of electric sub-meter, that too, when the electricity connection is not in the name of the petitioner, but in the name of his father, who is not a party to this case, this Court is of considered opinion that the Trial Court has exceeded its Page No.# 6/6

jurisdiction and flouted the basic principles of natural justice. Even if the Trial Court intended to allow the installation of electric sub-meter, it ought to have given opportunity of being heard to the father of the petitioner in whose name the electricity connection is there in the said premises.

13. For aforesaid reasons, this Court is of considered opinion that the impugned order is liable to be set aside to the extent it has allowed the Petition No. 1344/2024 by directing the petitioner to make arrangement for the installation of separate electric sub-meter in the living room of the respondent.

14. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby set aside.

15. This case is accordingly disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant