THINGUJAM NINGOL SHAKHI DEVI Vs. LONGJAM SURANJOY SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein has brought a suit being Matrimonial (Injunction Suit) No. 18/2002 in the Family Court, Manipur praying for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondent No. 1 from marrying respondent No. 2 on the ground that the petitioner is the legally married wife of respondent No. 1 and their marriage relationship is still subsisting. Alongwith the said suit an application for temporary injunction was made on the date of filing of the suit, i.e., on 26.6.2002 and on the same day an ex parte temporary injunction order was issued restraining respondent No. 1 and No. 2 from performing their marriage ceremony on 1.7.2002 respondent No. 1 approached the Court praying for vacating the temporary injunction order on the ground that the petitioner had not complied with the mandatory requirements of law as provided for in the proviso appended to Rule 3 order XXXIX of CPC. This matter was registered as Judicial Misc. Case No. 58/2002 and the learned Judge, Family Court passed the impugned order dated 1.7.2002 thereby vacating the temporary injunction order passed on 28.6.2002 after hearing the parties.

(2.) BY this Application under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner had approached this Court praying for invoking the Constitutional power to intervene in the matter complaining, inter alia, that a great injustice has been caused to the petitioner herein as a result of the impugned order which is not tenable in law. At the outset Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned counsel for the respondents has raised technical objections contending that under Section 19 of the Family Court's Act an Appeal lies against the aforesaid order of injunction which includes setting aside or vacation of temporary injunction order that had been passed ex parte and as such the High Court may riot exercise the Constitutional power. In support of the submission the learned counsel has relied upon some of the decisions including one decision of our High Court reported in : 1998 (1) GLT 323 and some other decisions.

(3.) MR . Modhu, learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand has submitted to the Court that in view of the fact that no Division Bench will be available in this Bench for sometime now (for the whole month of July, 2002 as per Constitution of Bench) the petitioner has been compelled to approach this Court for the aforesaid Constitutional power of this Court.