Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040006302024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : CRP/20/2024 Oli Koyu and 2 Ors Son of Late Tapak Koyu, present resident of C Sector, Itanagar, Papumpare District, Arunachal Pradesh 2: Pakgam Koyu Riba Age: Occupation : Daughter of Late Tapak Koyu presently resident of Pasighat East Siang District Arunachal Pradesh 3: Karbi Riba Yirang Age: Occupation : Daughter of Shri Dakkar Riba present resident of Pasighat East Siang District Arunachal Prades VERSUS Dakkar Riba and Anr Son of Late Modak Riba, permanent resident of Seren village, Lower Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh 2:Moba Doye Age: 78 Occupation : Head Gaon Burah(Village Authority) permanent resident of Seren Village Lower Siang District Arunachal Prades Advocate for the Petitioner : Rintu Saikia, Sr. Adv, Bomchi Taipodia,Limi Bam,Ligam Nochi Advocate for the Respondent : Lissing Perme, Signal Yirang,A Perme,William Yirang,Wintet Sawin,Jumge Riram,Krishna Dubey Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 23.09.2026 Heard Mr. Ligam Nochi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Lissing Perme, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents. 2. The instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 06.05.2024, whereby a Keba trial was fixed on 18.05.2024, issued by the village authority of Seren village, Lower Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. 3. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner no.2, namely, Smt. Pakngam Koyu Riba is the deserted wife of respondent no.1, namely, Shri Dakkar Riba and petitioner no.3, namely, Smt. Karbi Riba Yirang is the daughter of respondent no.1 and niece of petitioner no.1, who is the brother-in-law of respondent no.1 and brother of petitioner no.2. The respondent no.2, namely, Shri Moba Doye, is the Head Gaonbura of Seren village and the maternal uncle for respondent no.1. In the year 1989, petitioner no.2 and respondent no.1 got married and from their wedlock, 4 children were born. It is stated that from the initial period of marriage, respondent no.1 has been harassing his wife, i.e., petitioner no.2, mentally and physically. It is stated that in the year 1999, respondent no.1 developed an extra- marital affair with one Ms. Toter Nyodu, and when petitioner no.2 objected to the same, petitioner no.2 was physically assaulted by respondent no.1, due to which petitioner no.2 sustained grievous injuries. The assault kept on happening, and petitioner no.2 was assaulted again in 2001. Due to such assault, a Keba was conducted on 15.09.2001, wherein Keba passed a decision that in the future, Page No.# 3/5 respondent no.1 should not torture his wife, and if he repeats the same, then he should divorce his wife with 50% of his earnings and 50% of his total movable and immovable properties. 4. Accordingly, petitioner no.2 and respondent no.1 executed a deed of mutual settlement on 15.09.2001. However, respondent no.1 developed another extra- marital affair with one Ms. Tipi Chisi, and during that time, petitioner no.2 was pregnant. However, due to torture and physical assault, petitioner no.2 suffered a miscarriage. It is stated that due to the continuous habit of having extra-marital affairs of respondent no.1, petitioner no.2, being fed up, left for her parents' house. Subsequently, respondent no.1, after realizing his mistakes, sought an unconditional apology before petitioner no.2 and requested her to come back home. Accordingly, petitioner no.2 accepted the apology of respondent no.1 under certain conditions through a deed of settlement dated 18.07.2013. But despite the various Keba and settlements, respondent no.1 continued to keep extra-marital affairs with many women and tortured petitioner no.2 mentally and physically. Thereafter, since December 2016, petitioner no.2 and respondent no.1 have been living separately and they have no relationship as husband and wife. 5. It is stated that the Respondent no.1 married one Iter Taipodia as his second wife, who later on left respondent no.1 and started living separately. Again, respondent no.1 married Ms. Monti Borang as his third wife. It is stated that in the year 2020, the children of respondent no.1, from the first wife, filed a maintenance suit before the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) East Siang District, Pasighat, which has been registered as Maintenance Suit No. 04/2020, wherein the court, after considering all the aspects and circumstances, passed a judgment and order dated 30.07.2021, handing down an amount of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to be paid to the minor daughter Miss Kari Riba (petitioner no.3) for the purpose of maintenance allowance from the respondent no.1. Page No.# 4/5 6. It is stated that the marriage of petitioner no. 3 had been fixed with one, Shri Mingkeng Yirang. It is stated that, as per customary practice of Adi tribe, it is required to give gifts to maternal uncles of the bride by the maternal uncle of the bridegroom. 7. Accordingly, the maternal uncles of the bridegroom and the bride exchanged gifts as per the customary Kepel practice and completed the Kepel ceremony and solemnized the marriage of Miss Karbi Riba and Shri Mingkeng Yirang. However, a complaint was lodged by respondent no.1 before the Head Gaonbura, namely, Moba Doye, alleging illegal solemnization of marriage of petitioner no.3 by petitioner no.1 by taking bride price. Accordingly, the Head Gaonbura fixed a local Kebang at Seren Community Hall on 27.05.2024. 8. The issue which has given rise to the instant CRP is basically is that the aforesaid Moba Doye, the Head Gaonbura of Seren village, is a maternal uncle of respondent no.1 and having close family ties with respondent no.1. Therefore, the petitioners are apprehensive that the Kebang may be biased in holding the Kebang meeting. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that since the maternal uncle is the Head Gaonbura, the Kebang is not authorized or does not have jurisdiction under Section 17 of the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 2021. He submits that he does not have any objection if the Kebang is held by any other Gaonburas available in the Seren village for the Kebang. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents does not have any objection if the Kebang is held by other Gaonburas of Seren village. 11. This court has perused the relevant provision, i.e., Section 17(1), which provides as follows:- "(1) No Judicial Officer or authority of customary court shall try any suit to or Page No.# 5/5 in which he/she is a party or personally interested." 12. Taking into account the aforesaid provision and the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the respective parties, and since there is no dispute that the Head Gaonbura, namely, Moba Doye, is distantly related to the respondent no.1, the instant petition is disposed of by directing that the Kebang of Seren village, which is scheduled to be held, and wherein Parwana has already been issued on 06.05.2024, shall be held by other Gaonburas of Seren village, excluding the Head Gaonbura, namely, Moba Doye. 13. It is made clear that the Kebang shall accordingly issue fresh Parwanas to the parties as regarding holding of the Kebang on a particular date to be fixed by the Kebang. 14. In terms of the aforesaid directions, the instant CRP is disposed of. JUDGE Miriam Degu (SPA)