Pritima Burman @ Pratima Burman vs Jeevanlal Burman
2025 Latest Caselaw 1643 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Pritima Burman @ Pratima Burman vs Jeevanlal Burman on 11 August, 2025

                                            1

                                      Digitally
                                      signed by A
                                     ANNAJEE
                             A       RAO
                             ANNAJEE
                                     Date:
                             RAO     2025.08.12
                                      18:33:50
                                      +0530




                                                     2025:CGHC:40085



          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                           CRR No. 749 of 2022



Pritima Burman @ Pratima Burman W/o Shri Jeevan Lal Burman Aged
About 40 Years Resident of Jarhabhatha, Omnagar, Bilaspur, Police Station
- Civil Lime Tahsil and District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ...
                                                              Petitioner


                                      versus


1 - Jeevanlal Burman S/o Late Sukhiram Burman Aged About 50 Years
Occupation Teacher, Headmaster, Govt Middle School Lamer, Block -
Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.


2 - Amrautin Bai @ Ramshila W/o Jeevanlal Burman Aged About 44 Years
C/o Father Hetram Khunte, R/o Bokrel, Tahsil - Baloda, District Janjgir-
Champa Chhattisgarh.                                      ... Respondents

For Petitioner : Ms. Asha Sharma, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For Respondent(s) :

(Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)

Order on Board

11/08/2025

This revision has been filed by the wife u/s 397 and 491 of CrPC

against the impugned judgment dated 31.05.2022 passed in Cr.A.

No.46/2021 by the learned Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, Distt.

Bilaspur arising out of the judgment dated 15.02.2021 passed in MJC

No.17/2017 by the JMFC, Bilaspur.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has died

and pursuant to her death, no instructions have been received from the

legal representatives of the applicant, therefore, she does not want to press

this petition.

In view of the above submission, this petition is dismissed as not pressed.

Sd/-

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

Rao