Yumnam Sanathoi Devi vs Chanam Pikesh Meitei on 16 April, 2026

Manipur High Court

Yumnam Sanathoi Devi vs Chanam Pikesh Meitei on 16 April, 2026

                                                                         Sl. No.6

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
                               AT IMPHAL
                        MC(Mat. App.)No.14 of 2025
          Yumnam Sanathoi Devi
                                                                     Applicant
                                  Vs.
          Chanam Pikesh Meitei
                                                                   Respondent

BEFORE
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
(ORDER)
(Order of the Court was made by Mr. M. Sundar, CJ)

16.04.2026.

SPONSORED

[1] Captioned ‘Miscellaneous Case’ (‘MC’ for the sake of brevity)

has been filed with a ‘Condonation of Delay’ (‘CoD’ for the sake of brevity)

prayer qua 10(ten) days delay in filing an appeal assailing ‘judgement and

decree dated 08.04.2025 made in Matrimonial (Divorce) Suit No. 57 of 2024

(CNR: MNIW05-000161-2024) on the file of Family Court, Manipur at

Lamphelpat, Imphal’ {hereinafter ‘impugned decree’ for the sake of brevity,

clarity and convenience}.

[2] In and vide the impugned decree, a petition for divorce by wife

has been dismissed and visitation rights qua minor child has been given.

[3] To be noted, notice was ordered in captioned CoD application,

respondent husband has refused to receive the notice and tracking report

of the postal department demonstrating refusal has been filed as proof of

service. There is no difficulty as regards this aspect.

Page 1 of 4
[4] However, today as CoD application was taken up, this Court

had the benefit of perusing memorandum of grounds of matrimonial appeal.

This Court finds that the matrimonial appeal has been presented in this

Court on 05.08.2025 under Section 28 of the ‘Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25

of 1955)’ {‘HMA’ for the sake of brevity}.

[5] The court which made the impugned decree i.e., ‘FAMILY

COURT, MANIPUR AT LAMPHELPAT, IMPHAL’, shall hereinafter be

referred to as ‘said Original court’ for the sake of convenience.

[6] From the description/name of said Original court, it appears

that impugned decree has been made by a Family court.

[7] The following questions arise:

(i) whether the court which made the impugned decree i.e.,
said Original court is a ‘Family court’ within the meaning of
section 2(d) of the ‘Family Courts Act, 1984 (66 of 1984)’
{‘FCA’ for the sake of brevity} read with section 3 of FCA ?;

(ii) whether the impugned decree was made by a District court
being a ‘District court’ within the meaning of section 3(b) of
HMA ?;

(iii) if the court which made the impugned decree is a Family
court within the meaning of FCA [section 2(d) read with 3 of
FCA] can only a statutory appeal under Section 19 of FCA be
filed and is a appeal under Section 28 of HMA maintainable?

[8] To be noted, whether it is an appeal under Section 28 of HMA

or section 19 of FCA, the same has to be heard by a Division Bench, the

reason is, as regards a section 28 appeal, Rule 10, more particularly Rule

Page 2 of 4
10(a) of General Rules of Chapter-II of High Court of Manipur Rules, 2019

mandates that such appeals are to be heard by a Division Bench. If it is an

appeal under Section 19 of FCA sub-section (6) of section 19 of FCA

mandates that such appeal shall be heard by a Bench consisting of 2(two)

or more judges.

[9] To be noted, Rule 10(a) of General Rules of Chapter-II of High

Court of Manipur Rules, 2019 reads as follows:

‘(10) (a) a suit or proceeding between the parties to
a marriage for a decree of nullity of marriage (declaring
the marriage to be null and void or, as the case may
be, annulling the marriage) or restitution of conjugal
rights or judicial separation or dissolution of marriage;’

Section 19(6) of FCA reads as follows:

’19 (6) An appeal preferred under sub-section (1) shall be
heard by a Bench consisting of two or more Judges’.

[10] We also notice that if it is an appeal under Section 28 of HMA,

the prescribed period of limitation is 90 (ninety) days vide sub-section (4) of

section 28 of HMA. If it is a statutory appeal under Section 19 of FCA, the

prescribed period of limitation is 30 (thirty) days vide sub-section (3) of

section 19 of FCA.

[11] Faced with the above situation, Ms. Ch. Monibala Devi,

learned counsel on record for MC applicant sought time to examine the

position and revert to this Court.

Page 3 of 4
[12] As service in CoD application is complete, in/from the next

listing, Registry to not to list the captioned matter under cause list caption

‘SERVICE NOT COMPELTED’.

[13] List under a suitable cause list caption on 15.06.2026.

[14]         List on 15.06.2026.




                    JUDGE                             CHIEF JUSTICE

John Kom




                                                                   Page 4 of 4