IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Wrlt Petition No. ^ of 2004- PETITIONER ^ ^s^ '.-••"^.'?^\' . '-•,^'v'r- /w\'' .^•^>'y1^'^'^'" -tf'r*"3" .^>'" \ ?<e-° o"' RESPONDENT Snit. Rekha Singh @ Ainrita Singb aged 30 years, W/o Dr. Jitendra Kuinar Singh, R/o at present Vill. Khedchhapra, post Siktaria, P.S. SE TahsU Mahrajganj, Distt. Shivan (Bihar) VERSUS Dr. Jitendra Singh S/o Shivaji Singh aged about 30 years, R/o House No. 303, Near Jagir Chowk, Vegetable Market, Khursipar, Bhilai Tahsil 85 District Durg (C.G.) PETITION UNDER ARTICLES i7 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA , FOR ISSUAKCE OF SUITABLE DIRECTIOWS, ORDERS OR WRITS INCLUDING WRITS IW THE KATURE OF CERTIORARl, MANDAMUS ETC. s^:^^^ sn^rqir R-<i<*3n^r SbfWffficr T5? ^IWWf, Si-rfltl'IS, IsKII'Hy yrqa^ N|t|C(T9)t|l<tl^Mtl^/Q^ 341^1 gkfiwfffer Shri D.N.Prajapati counsel fo Heard on the question of adn|iission. On 10-02-2005 this Court p^ on the counsel for the respondent order Dasti Notice was handed overf the same on the counsei for resporjdent Yugal Kishor Singh, father of the pefl he went to the counse! for the ^ the trial Court on 05-04-2005 but sh resj^ondent give ackhowledgement of the same is held to be effeoted. Heard counsel for the petitio: The petitioner has fifed this 12-05-2004 passed by IV A.D.J, appttoation of the petitioner under q application filed under order 1 4 Rul^ Dr. Jitendra Kumar Singh. Earii^ 12(1$(c) read with Seotion 13 of| which was dismissed vide judgmenl the saict application has been pref marriage and as such the samj +i.!iFd<fl-f tiiw1'ffte^t'<f»i«i< ^sri^iTsn^r the petitioner. Irmitted the petitioner to affect Dasti Sen/'ice |i the Trial Court. In compliance of the said [to the counsel for She petitioner for sen'ice of in trial Court. An affidavit of one Shri litioner has been filed in whioh it is stated that namely Ku. Mani Karnika Sharma in refused to accept the notice and declined to In view of the above service on responc'ent er. petition against the impugned order dated- Ipurg in case No, 161-A/2003 by which the fection 24 of Hlndu Marriage Act as aiso the 5 ofC.P.C. have been rejected. Case of the petitioner is tl-^t she is a married v/ife of the respondent an appiication for divoroe under Section |the Hindu Marriage Act was fiied by the respondent before the III A.D.J, Dur^ registered as Civil Case No. 150-A/1999 dated 08-03-2000 by recording a finding that 'erred before the expiry of one year of the was not maintainable. Thereafter, the ^ ('fl^^M) XI-HC-22 311^1 ?iT f^iteaTl^T Sh*litlflf?cr Jyo y 'SSf rt)|<||c|<<, OTfly'16, Rtcfiy^<. 311^1 4ach IIHWI y^wti """"""""/'"'" gq' 2®fl— Ri'o< 311^1 g<-dlW:(lf?cT -2-- folr expepses respondent filed an application Act which was registered as Civil A/2002 the petitioner herein also Hindu Marriage Act praying for hearing and Rs. 25,000/- as the petitioner aiso preferred an a praying for framing of preliminary jurisdiction to hear the suit. By the impugned order th^ rqgcted by the Court below on tl-| of the Hindu Marriage Act has b^ absence of the applioant and the^ maintainable and accordingly the| also been rejeoted without divorce under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage IsuitNo. 114-A/2002. In Civil Suit No. 114- 1 made an apptioation under Section 24 of the ^rant of expenses @ Rs. 2500/- per date of for prosecuting the case. Apart from this, ij3plication under order 14 Rule 5 of C.P.C. for lissue to the effect that whether the Court has aD assignpg Having heard learned oou( the order of the Trial Court rejecf the ground that an application been rejected, appeare to be unJL) decided the app'ication on merit^ aside and it is direoted that trial giving due opportunity of hearing With the aforesaid obsewi °fti<<f^i41-f iwoT^'fei^<fSi+<ii< ^sri^IT 311^51 i application for interim maintenance has been ground that the application under Section 24 ?en rejected by order dated 30-08-2003 in the efore no fresh appiication for the same relief is application under order 14 rule 5 of C.P.C has any reason. (isel for the petitioner this Court of the view that ing the applioation for interim maintenarice on urfder Section 24 of the 1-iindu Marriage Act has jstified beoause the Court belov»'ought to have and to that extent the impugned order is set ]Court shali decide the application afresh after (o the parties. tions the petition is disposed of. Sd/- Dhirendra Misbra Judge (-fl^y^) y.^ y^.^