Manipur High Court
Monita Naorem Aged About 22 Years vs Oinam Devananda Singh Aged About 33 … on 1 April, 2025
Author: A.Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A.Guneshwar Sharma
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
Matrimonial Appeal No.2 of 2018
Monita Naorem aged about 22 years, w/o
Oinam Devananda Singh and D/O N.
Inaoba Singh of Oinam Sawombung
Makha Leikai, PO Lilong & PS Wangoi,
Imphal West District, Manipur at present
Nambol Makha Leikai, PO & PS
Nambol, Bishnupur District, Manipur.
... Appellant/Defendant
-Versus-
Oinam Devananda Singh aged about 33 years,
s/o O.Angou Singh, of Oinam Sawombung
Leikai, PO Lilong, PS Wanngoi, Imphal
West District, Manipur.
... Respondent/Plaintiff
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.D.KRISHNAKUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.GUNESHWAR SHARMA
For the Appellant :: Mr. H. Dijen, Advocate
For the Respondent :: Mrs. I. Lenibala, Advocate
Date of hearing :: 27.01.2025
Date of order :: 01.04.2025
MAT APP NO.2 OF 2018 CAV 1
O R D E R (CAV)
(JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA)
[1] By the present Appeal, appellant/wife is challenging the
impugned judgment and decree dated 15.12.2017 passed by the learned
Judge, Family Court, Manipur in Matrimonial (Divorce) Case No.168 of
2016. By the impugned order, the marriage between the appellant and
the respondent/husband was dissolved on the ground of adultery
committed by the appellant/wife. The main ground of challenge, amongst
others, is that the impugned judgment and decree lacks material evidence
and the learned Trial Court decided the case on presumption without any
material evidence.
[2] The facts leading to filing Mat (Div) Case No.168 of 2016 is
that the appellant/defendant was married with the respondent/plaintiff
and their marriage ceremony was solemnized on 21st day of March, 2014.
The marriage was registered with the Registrar of Marriage, Imphal on
26.03.2014 with Sl. No. 54 of 2014 under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
In the 2nd week of October, 2016, respondent/plaintiff lodged a complaint
for abduction, for enticing and taking way of his wife by one Hanjabam
Rajesh @ Boicha @ Shyamsunder Sharma (accused) and lodged
complaint on 16.10.2016 with the Women Police Station, Bishnupur,
under Sections 366/368/34 IPC and FIR No.27 (10) 2016 WPS BPR was
registered. Further, it is stated that the accused and the defendant
surrendered themselves to the IO of the case on 27.10.2016 along with a
pre arrest bail order of the accused and the appellant/defendant gave her
statement that she was not abducted by anybody and later the
appellant/defendant was handed over to her parents. After engaging a
lawyer to represent her under Section 13 of the Family Court Act, 1984,
the wife did not appear in the divorce case and was proceeded ex-parte.
MAT APP NO.2 OF 2018 CAV 2
[3] Finding of the learned Judge, Family Court, Manipur is that
the evidence of the respondent/plaintiff proved that the wife
(appellant/defendant herein) had voluntarily cohabited with the said
accused (whom she eloped/was allegedly abducted) while her marriage
with her husband (the respondent/plaintiff herein) was still subsisting and
such acts of the appellant/defendant rendered their marriage a dead
marriage thereby constituting the grounds for divorce. Vide impugned
order dated 15.12.2017, the marriage solemnized on 21.03.2014 between
the appellant/defendant and the respondent/plaintiff was dissolved and
the Marriage Certificate dated 26.03.2014 bearing Sl. No. 54 0f 2014 was
also cancelled.
[4] Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the
appellant/defendant filed appeal under Section 19 of the Family Court Act,
1984 against the judgment/decree dated 15.12.2017 passed by the
learned Judge, Family Court, Manipur in Mat. (Div.) Case No. 168 of 2016.
The appellant denied the allegation of her co-habitation with one
Hanjabam Rojesh Sharma. It is urged that the decree of divorce was on
the sole basis of the presumption of cohabitation with another person
during the subsistence of marriage. The same was without any material
and was not proved. It is asserted that neither the appellant nor the third
person has ever been convicted by the court in the alleged FIR case.
During the course of hearing, the appellant also has raised the question
of non-joinder of necessary party (the adulterer) in the divorce case as
the decree of divorce was solely based on the ground of adultery.
[5] During the pendency of the present appeal, the respondent
filed an additional affidavit dated 23.01.2025 for bringing on record the
subsequent fact that the appellant married again with one Laishram Raju
Singh. The wife of the said Raju Singh, namely Ibeyaima Yangoijam filed
a Matrimonial (Divorce) Suit No. 22 of 2022 against her husband Raju and
MAT APP NO.2 OF 2018 CAV 3
the appellant herein in the Family Court, Manipur. This fact is not disputed
by the appellant.
[6] Mr. H. Dijen Singh, learned counsel for the appellant submits
that the divorce case was not maintainable due to non-joinder of
necessary party, ie, the adulterer, as the divorce was granted on the sole
ground of co-habitation with stranger during the subsistence of the
marriage. It is also pointed out that such allegation is not substantiated
by any material evidence.
[7] On the other hand, Mrs. I. Lenibala, learned counsel for the
respondent submits that with the subsequent event of the appellant’s
marriage with one Raju, the appeal has become infructuous. It is pointed
out that even if the appellant succeeds in the appeal, the earlier marriage
cannot be restored due to the second marriage of the appellant. It is
emphasised that the appeal is reduced to a pure question of academic.
She relies on the decision of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Gopal
Singh v. Shanker Singh reported as 1978 0 Supreme (Raj) 387: 1978
0 WLN 477 [referring to AIR 1974 SC 505] to the point that ‘A court will
not decide an academic question, the answer to which cannot affect the
position of one party or the other.
[8] During the course of hearing, this Court enquired from Mr.
H. Dijen, learned counsel for the appellant about the factum of second
marriage of the appellant and he admitted the same. However, he avers
that the divorce proceeding was bad for non-joinder of necessary party,
ie, the adulterer when the divorce was based on the sole ground of
adultery. On the other hand, to the pointed question whether the
appellant will be ready to live with the respondent in case the decree of
divorce is set aside by this Court, Mr. H. Dijen, learned counsel for the
appellant answers in negative.
MAT APP NO.2 OF 2018 CAV 4
[9] This Court is of the opinion that the appeal has become a
pure question of academic, where the outcome of the appeal will not
affect the position of the party. It is the settled principle of law that the
court does not decide infructuous and pure academic question and such
question be left open to be decided in appropriate case. In the case of
Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. v. Poddar
Projects Lts: (2007) 2 SCC 431, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that
the appeal became infructuous and the questions raised therein left open
for decision in an appropriate case. Similar view was held in the case of
Union of India v. A M Overseas: (2006) 6 SCC 19 that the appeal
became infructuous and the question of law raised therein was directed
to be decided in appropriate case.
[10] With the subsequent event of the marriage of the appellant
with another person, the appeal has become infructuous and the question
raised herein of non-joinder of adulterer in the divorce proceeding based
on the sole ground of adultery, has been reduced to a pure question of
academic importance. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as infructuous,
keeping the question of non-joinder of necessary party (ie, adulterer)
open, to be decided in appropriate case. No cost.
[11] Registry is directed to prepare appellate decree. Return case
record along with a copy of this order.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE FR/NFR Priyojit Digitally signed by MAT APP NO.2 OF 2018 CAV RAJKUMAR RAJKUMAR PRIYOJIT 5 PRIYOJIT SINGH Date: 2025.04.08 SINGH 10:33:58 +05'30'