»y> .;':'~fc •'t; ?•' / rf'A^ ^ /''^?" ...^ .'y / '/w/f\\ ^5^ ^^'' ••<•-' APPLICANT YERSUS tett, Oivision Benclk nt 1011E- ^•w4r- ?otes:s;%oi linoiee"5, tB.ITa l^i<T?a iiergar ^'£_ _ ____ ^^^^ ^. ^6.XX.^r £- wi- ^? ^^'^•/ •ll€~^^~? J;. \:. 'fs. >^.SS M0%^;. M.^.is'.a.rji r & -Ksr'7n-- ^. l '\jy£' &, SS.E^ S: <r2.i.'rf.E.i:..6,.i .3.<<- A.-^— HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR DB: Hon'ble I. M. QUDDUSI 85 Hoa'ble G. MINHAJUDDIN, JJ Fu-st Appeal (Ml No-72 of 2011 APPELLANT: RESPONDBNT: Punvaban Patel Vs. Siat. Jay KuDian Chaudhary First Appeal under Section 19(11 ofthe Pamilv Coiut Act Appearance: Mr. M.K.SinIia, counsel for fhe appeilant. Mr. Puuit Ruparel, couasel for the respondent. ORAL ORDBR (14.12.2011) Per I.M. QUDDUSI, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by fhe non-appUcaat/husband against fhe order dated 03.05,2011 whereby the leamed Family Court Raigarh rejected the appUcation uiider Section 26 of fhe Hiiidu Marriage Act for custody offhe cMd. 2. It appears that the application u/ s 26 has been disinissed wifhout going into the inerits of the case because of fhe reason fhat an application filed undei' the Guardians aad Wards Act has been pendiag ia the Distnct Court, Saiabalpur. -t'-'"' 3. Leamed counsel for fhe appellaut has informed that fhe application u/ s 6 of the Guardiaas aad Waids Act has been withdrawn yesterday, therefore, no cause for disinissal of the application u/ s 26 wifhout going into. the inerits of the case r'r v Vs-e-' «• 4. 5. would arise aad fhe Family Court inay now decide fhe appUcation u/ s 26 afresh. In view oftbis the mipugned order dated 03.05.20-11 rejecthis fhe appUcation u/ s 26 is set aside aud the inatter is reinanded to the Family Court to decide the application u/s 26 of the Hiadu Marriage Act afresh on inerits icstoriag the saaie to its origiual number. Accordingly, fhis appeal stands disposed a£- Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge Rao