Husain Chandra Prakash vs Smt. Hempushpa Dahire
2023 Latest Caselaw 764 Chatt

                                  -1-



                                                                NAFR

          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                     WP227 No. 121 of 2023

    Husain Chandra Prakash S/o Ramsahay Dahire, Aged
     About 54 Years R/o Ambedkar Ward, Mungeli, Police
     Station Tahsil And District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.

                                                        ---- Petitioner

                                Versus

    Smt. Hempushpa Dahire W/o Husain Chandra Prakash,
     Aged About 37 Years R/o Village - Dandgaon, Post -
     Dandgaon, Police Station And Tahsil - Pathariya, District :
     Mungeli, Chhattisgarh                   ---- Respondent

For Petitioner : Shri Lav Sharma, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 07.02.2023

Heard.

1. This petition is filed against the order dated 20.06.2022, passed in Civil Suit No. 17A/2022 by District Judge, Mungeli.

2. The sum and substance of the case is that the application under Section 13 A of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the petitioner before the Court below for dissolution of marriage. Thereafter, the case was registered, notice was issued to the respondent on 12.04.2022 and despite service of notice, no one appeared on behalf of the respondent.

3. The learned Court below held that it is the matter of matrimonial dispute and effort should be made for conciliation of the parties and in pursuance of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the matter of Jagraj Singh

v. Veerpal Kaur1, bailable warrant can be issued, and thereafter, bailable warrant was issued to the respondent for her appearance before the Court on 20.07.2022.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that despite issuance of bailable warrant, the respondent has not marked appearance before the Court below, therefore, the order which has been passed on 20.06.2022 be set-aside.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

6. From the records, it appears that order has not been passed against the petitioner and the Court below has followed the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jagraj (supra). It is also worthy to note that the learned Court below has adopted the correct path with regard to counseling of the parties, therefore, I do not find any infirmity and illegality in the order passed by the learned Court below.

7. This petition has been filed after delay of 6 months and in para -7 of the petition, the petitioner has stated that there is no delay in filing the petition.

8. Considering the above aspect of the matter, this petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim

1. AIR, 2007 SC 2083