Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040011822024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : CRP/37/2024 Nyame Dabi aged about 34 years, Daughter of Tanya Dabi, Resident of Lower Banskota, PO/PS Pasighat, East siang District, AP VERSUS Tongku Moyong Son of Oson Moyong, Resident of Kelek Mirbuk, PO/PS Pasighat, East Siang district, AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Bedanta Kaushik, Noni Nobeng,Jobang Modi,P Bora,Orin Modi Advocate for the Respondent : Niranjan Sarma, Vijay Jamoh BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 07.05.2025 Heard Mr. B. Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The present petition is filed assailing the judgment and order dated 20.08.2024, passed by the learned District Judge, East Siang, Pasighat in I.A. No.06/2024 in Divorce Suit No.04/2024. Page No.# 2/4 3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present case is that Divorce Case No.04/2024 was filed by the petitioner against her husband, the respondent herein, for dissolution of marriage between them and permanent alimony of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty five lakhs only) with a further prayer for custody of their minor daughter until her majority and for interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- only in addition to the alimony of Rs.20,000/- granted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pasighat. 4. In the proceeding, the respondent husband filed an Interlocutory Application registered as I.A. No.06/2024 under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, with a prayer to reject the divorce petition No.04/2024, on the ground that the suit is barred by law. 5. The impugned order dated 20.08.2024 was passed in the aforesaid interlocutory application, whereby the suit was returned to the plaintiff to approach before the customary Court to address her grievances to ensure the object laid down under Section 50 C.P.C read with Section 18 of the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Court’s Act. 6. Prior to that, the husband had approached the customary Court seeking restitution of conjugal right and as the same was granted in favour of the respondent husband, an appeal was filed before the Civil Court. The learned District Judge observed in the impugned order that the appeal filed by the wife is required to be tried by the customary Court. As regards the pendency of the appeal preferred by the petitioner wife against the decision of the customary Court in favour of the respondent husband pending before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pasighat, this Court observed that the said proceeding Page No.# 3/4 may be withdrawn and treated as infructuous upon the presentation of divorce suit by the present petitioner before the customary Court, giving the respondent husband to press his application for conjugal right before the customary Court. 7. It is correct that in terms of the determination made in the Registrar General of Gauahati High Court Vs. the Union of India & Ors., reported in 2013 (4) GLT 1109, so far relating to the civil disputes, if both parties are indigenous tribals, they have a liberty, either to approach a customary Court in terms of AFAR or to approach the regular Civil Court in terms of the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Court’s Act. 8. Certain jurisdiction has been conferred i.e., the appellate as well as original upon the Civil Courts to take decision against the order passed by the customary Court. 9. This Court is of the considered opinion that when the petitioner and respondent admittedly from Adi community and they follow the customary practice and tradition and that, admittedly, there is no codified personal law seeking divorce or restitution of conjugal right in the backdrop of determination made by the Division Bench in the case of Registrar General (supra), the petitioner and the respondent shall be at liberty to approach the customary Court or Civil Court. The District Judge will have no such jurisdiction to entertain a divorce petition, therefore, when the District Judge admittedly lacks jurisdiction, the course of action open for the District Judge is to return the file to the plaintiff, giving her liberty to approach the appropriate forum as determined in the case of Registrar General (supra). Page No.# 4/4 10. The learned counsels for both the parties also agrees that this course of action would be the best course of action as on date. 11. Accordingly, taking note of the aforesaid submissions as well as taking note of the legal proposition as discussed hereinabove, the impugned judgment and order dated 20.08.2024 stands set aside. The parties are given a liberty to approach the appropriate forum i.e., either the customary Court or the regular Civil Court for seeking declaration of divorce. 12. Now coming to the observation as regards the pendency of civil appeal being Civil Appeal No.09/2024, before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Pasighat, the learned District Judge has exceeded its jurisdiction by declaring the said matter to be infructuous and by directing the matter to be taken up by the customary Court inasmuch as the issue was already decided by a customary Court and was taken to appeal by the wife in terms of Section 15 of the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Court Act. Therefore, the aforesaid order and the part of the judgment also stands set aside and it is provided that the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) shall take a decision on its own merit without being influenced by the order of the learned District Judge, East Siang District, Pasighat, Arunachal Pradesh. JUDGE Comparing Assistant