Allowed

Tamanna Khatun v. Pintu @ Imtiyaz

Chhattisgarh HC5 Dec 2014FAM/27/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed the appeal against a Family Court judgment that dismissed a petition for dissolution of marriage. The High Court found that the Family Court failed to provide further opportunities to lead evidence to both parties. The matter was remanded with directions to give such opportunities and decide expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment and decree are set aside. The matter is remanded to the Family Court with a direction to provide further opportunity to lead evidence and hearing to both parties, and to decide t

Tamanna Khatun Vs Pintu @ Imtiyaz — Matrimonial and Divorce | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ^ AT BILASPUR

¶3

C5'7L F.A. (M). N0. OF 2013

APPELLANT

applicant

-^y. •sy ^^-•"

^Camanna Khatun wife of Pintu @ Imtiyaz D/o. Nasrulla Khan, aged about 22 years, Occupation Urdu Tutor and House wife, R/o. Near Harsagar Pond, Mohalla Mominpur Nagar, Ambikapur, P.S. and Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.)

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

'son ^-^Pintu @ Imtiyaz of Madin Miyan, aged about 28 yeas, Occupation Driver & Mechanic, R/o. Village Kunk^iri (S-undar Nagar) P.S. and Tahsil Kunkuri, District Jashpur (C.G.),'

¶10

RESPONDENT

¶11

ron-Applicant

¶12

APPEAL UNDER SECTION 19 v OF THE FAMILY

COURT ACT

^-i^, •G v&^

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶17

FirstAppeal (W No. 27 of 2013

APPELLANT

Tamanna Khatun

(applicant)

Versus

RESPONDENT Pintu @ Imtiyaz

¶23

(Non-Applicant)

¶24

FIRSTAPPEAL UNDER SECTION 19 (1) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT

¶25

Coram: Hon. Shri T.P.Sharma and Hon. Shri I.S.Uboweja, JJ.

¶26

PRESENT:-

¶27

Mrs. Hamida Siddiqui, counsel forthe appellant.

¶28

None for the respondent though served.

¶29

ORDER

¶30

(Passedon 05-12-2014)

¶31

PerT.P.Sharma.J.

¶32

By this appeal under Section 19 (1) of the Family Couri:s Act, 1984 (for short 'the Act'), the appellant has challenged the legality, validity and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 06.03.2013 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Ambikapur, Dist. Surguja, in Civil Suit No.76-A/2012 whereby the Family Court has dismissed the petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree filed under Section 2 of Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, by the appellant.

¶33

As per plaint allegations, marriage between the appellant and respondent was solemnised on 20.06.2008. After some time of marriage, respondent-husband started committing torture and cruelty. The appellant

¶34

¶35

i %; '"•^.^'

¶36

has lodged a report against the respondent, which is pending before the competent court. He is having illicit relationship with one Kashida Khaturn. On the ground of cruelty, the petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree has been filed by the appellant.

¶37

¶38

By filing reply, the respondent denied the adverse allegations and pleaded that he has never committed any cruelty or torture upon the appellant, inter alia, the appellant committed torture and cruelty against him.

¶39

After providing an opportunity tfi the parties, the learned Judge, Family Court, has dismissed the petition for dissolution of marriage by a ^ecree.

¶40

We have heard the learned counsel for the appjellant and perused the record oftrial Court and thejudgment impugned.

¶41

¶42

Both the parties has led evidence against each other. Both the parties levelled allegations upon each other and have deposed the factum of cruelty against each other. The appellant has deposed that matter was also placed before the community meeting but she has failed to examine the members of the community meeting and also failed to depose as to when did the community meeting take place. She has also not flled the details of meeting and its decision to establish the factum of convening of meeting.

¶43

This is the case of matrimonial dispute and the Courts are required to take every precaution and step for continuation of marital relationship

¶44

between the parties instead of breaking matrimonial tie by granting a decree of divorce. The Courts are also required to keep in mind that continuation of marital life is a rule of law and divorce by breaking marriage is an exception which is required to be proved strictly. In the present case, the appellant-wife was having sufficient opportunity to prove her case but she has not adduced her evidence so also respondent was given opportunity to counter his case but the respondent has ateo not led any substantial evidence.

¶45

In these circumstances, the Family Court was under obligation to provide further opportunity to the partiers but the Family Court has also s- failed to provide such further opportunity.

¶46

A 9. Consequently, the appeal deserves to be and is hereby allowed. -" . i The Judgment and decree impugned is hereby set aside. The matter is remitt@d back to the Family Court concerned with a direction to provide further opportunity to lead evidence, ora] and documentary, and hearing to both the parties.

¶47

The Family Court, after remand of the case, shall decide the matter as exp'editiously as possible.

¶48

Parties shall remain present before the Family Court concerned on 13.01.2015.

¶49

No order as to costs.

¶50

Sd/Sd/InderSingh Uboweja T.P. Sharma • Judge Judge

¶51

~[:

Tamanna Khatun v. Pintu @ Imtiyaz

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tamanna Khatun v. Pintu @ Imtiyaz

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Sandhya Goswami Vs Ayodhya Puri Goswami

Triloknath Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Prem Yadav and Another Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vivek Singh Parihar Vs Smt.shweta @ Deepa Singh

Bhuwan Lal Kaushik and Others Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Commissioner Of Income Tax Raipur Vs M/s Baleshwari Mandir Trust Samiti Dongargarh