Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010268482025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/519/2025 SMT JHARNA DEURI DAUGHTER OF LATE BIRENDRA NATH DEURI, W/O SRI GAURAV SINGH, RESIDENT OF FLAT NO.401, LAXMI ENCLAVE, SATGAON, P.O. AND P.S.- SATGAON, DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN-781171 VERSUS GAURAV SINGH SON OF AMARJIT SINGH, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 7 N, PIYA TOWER, RADHA NAGAR, BARMOTORIA, CHASAL, SIXMILE, VIP ROAD, P.O.-PANJABARI, P.S.-DISPUR, DIST.-KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN-781037 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D BORAH, MR. N J GOGOI Advocate for the Respondent : MR. JYOTIRMOY ROY, B SAHA,MR D DAS,MR. C CHAKRAVARTY Linked Case : CRP(IO)/538/2025 SMT. JHARNA DEURI DAUGHTER OF LATE BIRENDRA NATH DEURI W/O-SRI GAURAV SINGH RESIDENT OF FLAT NO. 401 LAXMI ENCLAVE SATGAON P.O. AND P.S.- SATGAON Page No.# 2/4 DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM PIN-781171 VERSUS GAURAV SINGH SON OF AMARJIT SINGH PRESENTLY RESIDING AT FLAT NO.7 N PIYA TOWER RADHA NAGAR BARMOTORIA CHASAL SIXMILE VIP ROAD P.O.-PANJABARI P.S.-DISPUR DIST.-KAMRUP (M) ASSAM PIN-781037 ------------ Advocate for : MR. D BORAH Advocate for : MR. C CHAKRAVARTY appearing for GAURAV SINGH :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 14.09.2026 Heard Mr. D. Borah, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J. Roy, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. Both these applications are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 11.09.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge Family Court No.III, Kamrup (M) in Misc. (J) Case No.28/2025 arising out of F.C.(Civil) Case No.1075/2021 and Misc. (J) Case No.29/2025 arising out of Misc. (G) Case No.131/2022. Page No.# 3/4 3. Both the F.C.(Civil) Case No.1075/2021 and Misc. (G) Case No.131/2022 filed by the present respondents was dismissed for default in appearance. Subsequently, the respondent filed applications before the court below praying for restoration of both the cases. Accordingly, Misc. (J) Case No.28/2025 and Misc. (J) Case No.29/2025 came into being. The present petitioner had objected to the prayers made by the respondent. But the trial court restored both the cases to file. 4. Today, Mr. Borah has relied upon Section 10(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. Mr. Borah, thereby, submits that the Family Court is to follow the procedures laid down by Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and therefore, the Limitation Act would be applicable in such cases. In fact, while the respondent filed the restoration petitions under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the trial court, the petitioner has taken the plea of delay in filing of the said petition. 5. Per contra, Mr. Roy has submitted that according Section 10 sub-section (3) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the objection raised by the present petitioner on the issue of limitation is not applicable. In order to buttress his point, Mr. Roy has relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme that was delivered in Arunoday Singh v. Lee Anne Elton, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3285. Paragraphs 19 and 23 of the said judgment are quoted as under: “19. The Appeal was under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act which is not substantive law relating to marriage and divorce but an Act for constitution of Family Courts to deal with disputes relating to marriage and family affairs. The proceedings in the Family Court relating to marriage and divorce are not proceedings under the Family Courts Act even though the procedure prescribed under the Family Courts Act may be followed. Section 29(3) of the Limitation Act is, therefore, not attracted to appeals under the Family Courts Act. Moreover, there is no inconsistency between Section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984 and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which provides for condonation of delay in filing an appeal where there is no sufficient cause. 23. Section 29(3) of the Limitation Act excludes the application of the Limitation Act to any suit or other proceeding under any law with respect to marriage and divorce. The prohibition Page No.# 4/4 of Section 29(3) of the Limitation Act is restricted to suits and proceedings in the suit as observed by Nambiar, J. in Kunnarath Yesoda v. Manathanath Narayanan1. What is excluded from the purview of the Limitation Act, under Section 29(3) thereof, is suits and other proceedings of an original nature relating to marriage and divorce, such as a petition for relief under the marriage and divorce Laws. The Limitation Act is inapplicable to original proceedings. 6. I have given my anxious considerations to the submissions made by the leaned counsels of both sides. 7. I have decided to disagree with Mr. Borah in view of Section 8 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. Section 8 of the said Act excludes the Family Court’s jurisdiction by expressly barring the jurisdiction of civil courts in matters covered under Section 7 of the said Act. In Arunoday Singh (supra), it is held that Section 29 (3) of the Limitation Act excludes the application of the Limitation Act to any suit or other proceedings under any law with respect to marriage and divorce. In Family Court matters, the Limitation act is inapplicable in original proceedings. Section 29(3) of the Limitation Act excludes suits and other proceedings of original nature relating to marriage and divorce. 8. This Court is of the opinion that the learned trial court did not commit any jurisdictional error in both the cases. These two petitions are devoid of merits for exercising the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Both the revision petitions are dismissed and disposed of accordingly. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated. JUDGE Comparing Assistant