Unknown vs For The
2024 Latest Caselaw 1748 Tri

Tripura High Court

Unknown vs For The on 5 November, 2024

Author: T. Amarnath Goud

Bench: T. Amarnath Goud

                                  Page 1 of 2




                           HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                                 AGARTALA
                               FA NO.3 OF 2024

            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT

   Present:
   For the Appellant(s)           : Mr. D.K. Daschoudhury, Advocate.

   For the Respondent(s)          : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate.

Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, Advocate.

05.11.2024

Order

The petitioner challenges the Trial Court's order, which

dismissed the application on the grounds of jurisdiction, stating that

the Family Courts Act does not apply as the parties before the Court

are Muslims, and Mohamedan law under the Sharia Act should govern

the case. The petitioner has filed this appeal against the dismissal

order.

Mr. D.K. Daschoudhury, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner, draws the Court's attention to Section 281 of Mohemmadan

law and Section 7 of the Family Courts Act. He argues that the case is

maintainable and should be remanded to the lower Court for a fresh

hearing on its merits, asserting that the court has jurisdiction and the

application is valid.

Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr.

S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel representing the respondent-wife,

submits that the matter has been settled amicably between the parties,

making the issue academic.

However, Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner-

husband, denies this claim and insists that a decision on the merits is

necessary.

Mr. Roy Barman, learned Sr. counsel further contends that

the Trial Court's order is correct and requires no interference, as the

case is filed under the Family Courts Act, which is civil in nature, unlike

Cr.P.C., where uniform laws apply to all citizens. He also argues that

the appeal should be dismissed and the lower Court's order be upheld,

as the proceedings should be governed by Mohamedan law.

Arguments have been heard, and the judgment is reserved.

                                     B. PALIT, J              T. AMARNATH GOUD, J




    suhanjit

RAJKUMAR       Digitally signed by
               RAJKUMAR SUHANJIT
SUHANJIT       SINGHA
               Date: 2024.11.08
SINGHA         12:35:50 +05'30'