Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010152032025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/261/2025 SANGEETA BEGUM W/O ASHIQUE CHOUDHURI, D/O MAJIBUR RAHMAN, R/O GARIGAON, BEZPARA, P.O.- GARIGAON, GUWAHATI, P.S.- JALUKBARI, PIN-781012, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM VERSUS ASHIQUE CHOUDHURY S/O ATOWAR RAHMAN, R/O SATMILE, P.O.- JALUKBARI, P.S.- JALUKBARI, PIN-781014, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : G UDDIN, P ADHIKARI,MR M HAQUE Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S CHAMARIA, MR A N SARMAH,MR M M ZAMAN BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 23.07 .2025 Heard Mr. G. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. A.N. Sarmah, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 of Page No.# 2/3 the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the petitioner has challenged the correctness or otherwise of the order dated 03.04.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No.1, Kamrup(M), Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court'), in F.C. (Civil) Case No.534/2018. 3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order dated 03.04.2025, the learned Trial Court has held that summoning the Marriage Officer, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati to ascertain the age of the petitioner, will not serve the purpose. 4. Mr. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court at first, vide order dated 07.09.2024 has allowed the petition No.393/2023 filed on 27.03.2023 for calling the Marriage Officer to prove the marriage certificate, but subsequently, vide impugned order dated 03.04.2025, the learned Trial Court held that calling the Marriage Officer to ascertain the age of the petitioner will serve no purpose. Mr. Uddin further submits that since the marriage is disputed by the respondent herein, there is a requirement of examination of the Marriage Officer to prove the marriage and the certificate between the petitioner and the respondent and under such circumstances, the impugned order dated 03.04.2025, is arbitrary and illegal and therefore, Mr. Uddin contended to set it aside and to issue direction to the learned Trial Court to summon the Marriage Officer. 5. Mr. Sarmah, learned counsel for the respondent submits that he has no objection in the event of allowing this civil revision petition provided a timeline is fixed for examination of the Marriage Officer before the learned Trial Court. 6. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the impugned order dated 03.04.2025 and also the order dated 07.09.2024. 7. It is to be noted here that the petitioner herein had filed one petition, being Petition No.393/2023 on 27.03.2023 for summoning the Marriage Officer, Kamrup(M) along with register to prove the marriage certificate and vide order dated 07.09.2024, the learned Trial Court had allowed the said petition. But, subsequently, vide order dated Page No.# 3/3 03.04.2025, the learned Trial Court has held that calling the Marriage Officer to ascertain the age of the petitioner will serve no purpose and thereby recalled the earlier order dated 27.03.2023. 8. Since the marriage has been disputed by the respondent herein, this Court is of the view that there is a requirement for summoning the Marriage Officer to prove the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent. It is also to be noted here that fair trial is a right of both the parties and in a fair trial fair opportunity has to be afforded to both the parties to establish their cases. In the instant case, recalling the order dated 07.09.2024 vide order dated 03.04.2025 amounts to denial of fair opportunity to the petitioner to prove her case. 9. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 03.04.2025 appears to be illegal and arbitrary and on such count, the same stands set aside and quashed. Accordingly, the learned Trial Court is directed to summon the Marriage Officer along with the marriage register and thereafter, to proceed with the case in accordance with law. The aforesaid exercise has to be carried out within a period of 30(thirty) days from today. 10. In terms of above, this civil revision petition stands disposed of. Comparing Assistant Sd/- Robin Phukan JUDGE