FORGET LYNGDOH PHAWA Vs. DARAPBIANG MULIEH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner husband instituted Title Suit No.9 of 2021 against the respondent wife in the Additional District Council Court, Jowai praying for a decree of dissolution of marital relationship between them. Upon issuance of notice, the respondent entered appearance before the Trial Court and filed an application under Sec. 21, Order 7 Rule 11 read with Sec. 151 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking rejection of the plaint. The petitioner filed a show-cause against the said application. The learned Trial Court after hearing the parties passed the impugned order dtd. 6/9/2023 allowing the application filed by the respondent. Assailing the aforesaid order, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition before this Court.

(2.) Mr. M.F. Qureshi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court has committed a grave error of law by passing the impugned order on the basis of the residential address of the petitioner reflected in the plaint. He submits that it is a settled position that a divorce suit can be instituted in a place where the wife resides and there is no dispute to the fact that the place of residence of the respondent falls within the jurisdiction of Trial Court. He contends that the decision of the Apex Court reported in (2017) 13 SCC 488, Kyntiew Akor Suchiang v. Woston Hynniewta and anr, which was relied on by the Trial Court in passing the impugned order is not applicable in the present case in view of the fact that both the parties belong to the schedule tribe community. He submits that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the matter in its proper perspective and came to a wrong conclusion. He prays that the impugned order may be set aside and quashed.

(3.) Mrs. N.G. Shylla, learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the respondent supports the impugned order and submits that the decision of the case of Kyntiew Akor Suchiang (Supra) was rightly applied by the Trial Court while passing the impugned order. She submits that the place of residence of the petitioner was a relevant consideration for deciding the application filed by the respondent before the Trial Court and, hence, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. She submits that there is no merit in the present revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.