The Gauhati High Court dismissed a Regular Second Appeal, reaffirming that a Civil Judge (Junior Division) cannot dissolve a Muslim marriage or authenticate talaq. Only the District Judge can decide matrimonial disputes where no Family Court exists.
The Gauhati High Court dismissed a Regular Second Appeal, reaffirming that a Civil Judge (Junior Division) lacks the jurisdiction to grant a divorce or dissolve a marriage.
The Court determined that in regions without an established Family Court, the District Judge or the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction is the only authority capable of resolving such matrimonial issues.
The case originated when the appellant filed a Matrimonial (D) Suit (No. 18/2024) before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) in Hailakandi, seeking a declaration for the dissolution of his marriage dated July 25, 2021, “in the form of talaq.”
He also sought confirmation of a written divorce executed on three occasions:
- November 12, 2023
- December 17, 2023
- January 30, 2024.
The Civil Judge (Junior Division) proceeded ex parte as the respondent-wife did not appear.
Earlier, On May 15, 2025, the trial court ruled that “the marriage between the parties stands dissolved in the form of ‘talaq’” and confirmed the written divorce.
Dissatisfied with this ruling, the respondent lodged an appeal (T.A. No. 09/2025) before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hailakandi, who overturned the trial court’s judgment on June 25, 2025, stating it was null and void due to the Civil Judge (Junior Division)’s lack of jurisdiction.
The appellant subsequently approached the High Court to contest this ruling.
The appellant’s counsel, Mr. M.J. Quadir, argued that the suit was not a petition for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act or Special Marriage Act, but rather a request for a declaration of legal status under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
He claimed the appellant was merely seeking validation of the talaq he had issued.
Mr. Quadir cited the Supreme Court case Samar Kumar Roy through Legal Representative (Mother) v. Jharna Bera (2017) and a judgment from a coordinate Bench of the Gauhati High Court in Tika Ram Nepal v. Ambika Devi, asserting that civil courts are allowed to determine the legal status of a marriage when relief is sought under the Specific Relief Act.
In contrast, the respondent’s counsel, Mr. N. Haque, argued that despite being termed a declaratory suit, the appellant was essentially requesting a divorce decree.
He emphasized that Section 8 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 bars the jurisdiction of subordinate courts, and without a Family Court, only the District Judge has the authority to handle marriage dissolution proceedings.
Justice Mitali Thakuria, presiding over the appeal, identified the primary question of law: whether the lower appellate court acted correctly in nullifying the trial court’s decree based on jurisdiction.
The Court noted that while the appellant claimed the suit was solely for validating the talaq, the trial court had explicitly ruled that “the marriage between the parties stands dissolved.”
Justice Thakuria pointed out,
“Thus it is seen that in the garb of declaration of valid talaq, the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Hailakandi had authenticated the talaq given by the appellant husband to the respondent wife. It is also not a case that a simple declaration is sought for any legal character under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963… rather the plaintiff is seeking a decree of divorce/talaq… which is authenticated by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Hailakandi.”
The Court reaffirmed the established legal principle regarding matrimonial jurisdiction,
“It is a settled law that the family disputes, the dissolution of marriage, decree of divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act or the Special Marriage Act can only be entertained by the Family Court under Sections 7 & 8 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 and in absence of the Family Court, the District Court can examine the matters.”
The High Court concurred with the appellate court’s determination that the Civil Judge (Junior Division) had “neither the Court with equivalent jurisdiction, competency, nor authority to that of the Family Court and the District Court” in dealing with such matters.
The High Court upheld the decision of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), ruling that the decree from the Civil Judge (Junior Division) was null and void due to lack of jurisdiction.
The Court confirmed the appellate court’s direction, allowing the parties to approach the appropriate forum,
“But the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Hailakandi had no such authority or power to pass any decree of divorce/talaq.”
Consequently, the Regular Second Appeal was dismissed as lacking any merit.
Case Title: Javed Pervez Choudhury v Begum Najifa Yasmin Choudhury