ORDER : Heard. 1. This first appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 17-04-2017 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Jashpur, by which, plaintiff's suit has been dismissed as not maintainable. 2. The appellant filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of divorce before the Family Court, Jashpur. In the plaint, having averred that the plaintiff is Hindu and governed by Hindu laws, pleaded that the marriage was solemnized on 20-04-2016 according to Hindu Rights and Rituals at Jashpur. It was further pleaded that after sometime, the appellant went to New Delhi in connection with his job, leaving his wife-the respondent behind with his parents. It was also pleaded that on 04-08-2016, the respondent all of a sudden, left the house in the night and then, later on, the appellant came to know that the respondent has started residing with another person as his wife. Upon being traced, the respondent refused to come back by stating that she is married with another person. In the community meeting, the respondent and one Thabir @ Samir admitted that they are living together as husband and wife. It was alleged that the defendant has started living adulterous life and therefore, the appellant be granted a decree of divorce. In the written statement filed by the defendant, though allegations of she living adulterous life, was denied, the fact alleged in the plaint that the parties belonged to Hindu and governed by Hindu Laws was not disputed. According to the respondent, she is not being properly treated and the appellant is not prepared to take her to Delhi and keep her along with him on one pretext or the other. 3. Learned trial Court framed issues on 16-03-2017, as below:- ^^1- D;k Áfrokfnuh us oknh dk ?kj LosPN;kiwoZd R;kxdj xzke dksM+kfl;k ds Fkchj mQZ lehj vkRet j[ky lk; ds ?kj ij jg jgh gS\ 2- D;k Áfrokfnuh us fookg ds vuq"Bkiu ds i'pkr~ vius ifr ¼oknh½ ls fHkUu fdlh O;fDr ds lkFk LosPN;k eSFkqu fd;k gS\ 3- D;k oknh Áfrokfnuh ls gq, vius fookg dks foPNsfnr djk ikus dh ik=rk j[krk gS\ 4- lgk;rk ,oa okn O;;\** 4. The plaintiff's witness also filed their affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC. The plaintiff's witness also filed their affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC. The record shows that on the prayer made by both the parties, the Family Court passed an order under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 providing assistance of legal experts as amicus curiae. When the case was listed on 17-04-2017 for recording plaintiff's evidence, amicus curiae was appointed to assist the Court. The parties made joint statement that the parties belonged to Scheduled Tribe and they are not governed by the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. On the statement so made before the Court, the suit was dismissed as not maintainable at that stage. It is this order, which is under challenge before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Court below ought not to have dismissed the suit summarily without recording the evidence of the parties, because the parties in their pleading, have admitted that they are Hindus and governed by Hindu Laws. As against specific pleadings of the parties, bare statement before the Court by the amicus curiae, ought not to have made a basis to record a finding that the parties are not Hindus and therefore, they are not governed by Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, without recording evidence of the plaintiff and the defendant. It is also submitted that as the parties had admitted that they are Hindus, no issue in this regard was required to be framed. Therefore, the finding, contrary to the pleadings of the parties, without there being any amendment in the pleadings or the evidence could not be given to hold the suit not maintainable. 6. On the other hand, Shri Amant Kesharwani, learned counsel appearing under instructions from Shri Vineet Kumar Pandey, replies by submitting that the amicus curiae appearing before the Family Court, made statement, therefore, the trial Court had no other option, but to dismiss the suit. 7. We find that the appellant-plaintiff in his pleadings, has made clear averment that the parties are Hindu and governed by Hindu Laws. It has also been pleaded by the plaintiff that the marriage was solemnized on 20-04-2016 at Jashpur, according to the Hindu Rights and Rituals by way of Saptapadi. 8. 7. We find that the appellant-plaintiff in his pleadings, has made clear averment that the parties are Hindu and governed by Hindu Laws. It has also been pleaded by the plaintiff that the marriage was solemnized on 20-04-2016 at Jashpur, according to the Hindu Rights and Rituals by way of Saptapadi. 8. In the written statement, the averments made in para 1 to 3 of the plaint, it is admitted, that means both the parties have admitted that they are Hindu and governed by Hindu Laws. Therefore, there was no occasion for the trial Court to frame any issue in this regard. In the affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC also, the plaintiff stated in his affidavit before the trial Court that family members and his wife are followers of Hindu Religion and governed by Hindu Laws and that the marriage was solemnized according to Hindu Rights and Rituals by way of Saptapadi. 9. Except, bare statement before the Court by the amicus curiae, there was no evidence before the learned trial Court to come to conclusion that the parties are tribals and therefore, they are not governed by Hindu Laws and consequently, an application for grant of decree of divorce under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, would not be applicable. The trial Court ought to have recorded the evidence of the parties, before taking any such decision in the matter. The finding of the trial Court is based on statements made by the amicus curiae which is contrary to the pleadings of the parties. 10. We are, therefore, inclined to set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the trial Court for adjudication in accordance with law. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Records of the case be remitted to the Family Court forthwith.