Varun Yadav vs Smt. Rakeshwari Yadav
2025 Latest Caselaw 304 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Varun Yadav vs Smt. Rakeshwari Yadav on 2 July, 2025

                                                         1




Digitally signed                                                           2025:CGHC:29992
by AVANISH
KUMAR
PATHAK
Date:
2025.07.03                                                                                NAFR
14:19:31 +0530


                               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                                               FAM No. 80 of 2016

                   1 - Varun Yadav S/o Lakhanlal Yadav, Aged About 23 Years R/o Dongaripara
                   Kondagaon           P.S.      And      District Kondagaon,   Chhattisgarh
                   ..............Non-Applicant, Chhattisgarh
                                                                              --- Appellant

                                                      versus

                   1 - Smt. Rakeshwari Yadav W/o Varun Yadav, Aged About 22 Years R/o Don-
                   garipara P.S. And District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh ...............Applicant,
                   Chhattisgarh
                                                                          --- Respondent

1 - Varun Yadav S/o Lakhanlal Yadav, Aged About 23 Years R/o Dongaripara Kondagaon P.S. And District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh ..............Non-Applicant, Chhattisgarh

---Appellant

Versus

1 - Smt. Rakeshwari Yadav W/o Varun Yadav, Aged About 22 Years R/o Don- garipara P.S. And District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh ...............Applicant, Chhattisgarh

--- Respondent

For appellant : None.

For Respondent : Mr. Suresh Verma, Adv.

(Hon'ble Shri Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J) Order on Board 2-7-2025

1. FAM 80/2016 and FAM No. 81/2016 under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 have been preferred by the appellant against the judgments and decree dated 21-3-2016 passed by the Upper District Judge, Kondagaon (CG) in Civil Suit No. 17-A/2013 and Civil Suit No. 18-A/2012 respectively

2. On previous date of hearing, none appeared for the appellant. Today also, despite repeated calls, neither the appellant appears nor any representation is made on his behalf. In this circumstance, no option is left to this Court except to dismiss these appeals for want of prosecution.

3. Accordingly, these first appeals (M) are dismissed for want of prosecution.

4. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

Sd/-

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE

Pathak