IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPURfC.G' CIVIL REVISION No. -^T /2006 ?}Wst s pFrmoNER DEFENDANT y""^ €>^ v RESPONDENT (^ Harsh Kumar Kurm (Bhoi) Aged about 32 years S/o Neelkanth Kurm, R/o Qr. No. 28/E Cross street No. 1, Sector 1, Bhilai Nagar, District Durg Present Address Idgah Bhatha, Gali No. 3, Near Swami Vivekanand Ashram, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS J^ ^Smt. Itishri aged about 24 yrs. D/o Arun Gautam, R/o Qr. No. 28/E, Cross Street No. 1, Sector- 1, Bhilai Nagar, Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.) CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OI^CIVIL PRQCEDURE ~^~~^^. f~~ 3sr XI-HC-22 ^n^r^T r<Tli<=h 3Tg^T 5t')<Hich <-if^a ^ I- '3'^r'•^rpn^pT, ^x0^<i(o, ^i^y HW^{ ^b^icb 3TT^T 1ff^ . ..<?.:..?..:...^^.c?.^^ 200 '1^[8T' ^T^T'^IT^R <ifia 25,04,20% Shrl S»C.Verrna, iearned ^ounsei for the app'Iicant. Heard on admi.ssion. The.appiicant has preferr|e impugned order dated 08.03.200p which whiie adjudicating the C.P.C. fiied on behaif of the preferred 'by the respondent .fc|e judgment by which consent Hindu Marriage •Act (hereinafter| earlier suit between the same pa| Fami!y Court, Durg dismissed th^ ap|5i decrfee marnafie / Learned counsei for thd proceedings the Seventh Addlti^ orcier dated 25.10.2005 passed decree of dissoiution of further awarded a permanent IQ the respondent tlil she remarri^ges decree was passed by the ' !| ascertaining 'the factum of.oons^nt not open to the parties to the the groynd that consent wa.s' obt^ined have heard iearned cour|sei for the appiicant. ct>)l<Ll{<n<J1^ TTTR^if ^ 'fe1c?t <r31'^l< ^'STf^TR 37T^[ r|ed the 'lnstant .civl! revision agalnst the passed in Clvii Suit No. 14-A/06 and by api5iication under Order 7 Rule 11 of the ap^iicant/defendant.for dismissing the suit fc|eing.,nQt maintainable in. view of the of divorce under. Section 13MB ofthe' |referred to as tthe Acf) was .In ['ties.the Searned Third Additional Judge, said application. appiicant submits that in the eariier ^nal District Judge (FTC), Durg vide its |n CiviS Suit No. 351-Ay04, has passed a under Section 13-B of the Act and all?tionyat the rate of Rs. 2,000/M per month He further submits that the earlier ^arned Addition'a! Dlstrict Judge 'after between parties and therefore, jt^vvas decree to re-agltate the matter cn sbt^ined by practicing fraud. cdnsent [Tfr^ ^n^^i pr^'^ XI-HC-22 ^TT^T^T t^ri^^n^T 9h^ich ~^^ l<Vvft>^ ^ ^ ^? ^i|<i||^<q^ ^Til^Ko, f^cnmy 3iri?r ''^^? c.a. ^l^c-ll 5h^l<^ ^200 'I^^T' 37T^T'^TT^R Trft?r • ' The' non-applicant filed. declaration on the ground that h( by practicjng fraud. !t is open to the consent obtained by the fact a free consent or the same suit filed by the non-applicanl dismissed at the threshold. Thei and the same Is liabte to be accordingly, it is dismissed. Ho1 are iitigating since long the |he suit before the Family. Court for t^r consent was'obtained by the applicant jthe parties to put forth the facts whether aprilicant in the diyorce proceedings was in '|vas obtained by practicing fraud and the before . the Faniiiy Court -cannot be fre is no substance in the instant revision djsmissed at the motion stage itself and ^ever, looking. to the fact that the partles Court|below is directed to expedite the matter. chl^t<rt<flrl +lH<riT ^ feT^t <p3i^l< '^'3rf;<TH3TT^T Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge [Tft^ ^f<^^