T ^.^^"""t^" '^- XI-HC—78 ^5^ sn^iw Rs-fi'* WIT ail^l *t)i<ti L^ *ii*iCTi a»*n<*i ^ST '*ii<iici<i, yflly'ie, fqniyy ^^......^^...N.Q...4^..........^200% sf^f 'tpR? ('yid^'i?) WIIW^ltofOT^I APPLICANT (Piaintifr; RESPONDENT: (Defendant) Division Bench: Hon. Shri R.N. Chandrakar, JJ. 7-5-2009:- Shri Kshitij Sharma, couns^l Shri G.D. Waswani, couns^l The applicant, being aggri^ved separatlon passed in Civil Suit l^o. under Section 19 of the Family Family Court even after reachir^ wife has established ground of cj decree ofjudicial separation. ^lt^^'E ^WT^ ^ fe^ <^t^.l< ^sifinsn^; Smt. Sapna Sharma, aged about 28 years, wife of Shri Bhavesh Sharma, daughter of Shri Nand S<3shore Agarwa!, resident of Block-1, 2"" Floor, Lado Jawahar Nagar, t/ersus- Bhavesh Sharma, aged about 27 years, son of Shri D.P. Sharma, resident of 31/1414, Durga Niwas, Near Kadla Nursing Home, Katora Talab, Raipur. for the applicant. for the respondent by the impugned decree ofjudicial 1.98-A/2007, has preferred this appeal 3ourts Act on the ground that learned 3 to the conclusion that the apptlcant uelty for seeking divorce has passed a Sti^I ^il Ri-fi'* a>+ai<s •Sl J' -rfe 'S^ET ^iiqiy^ snilyiS, fs|<'ll'M'j,< sn^TTR^(' 'Raiw ^iftg sii^i -c5-1 eveh thle olf Looking to the fact that on 29-2-2008 parties to the differences, they were directed t6| !n compliance thereof, present in person. They were du| Both of them expressed that between them and there has passing of the impugned deci] circumstances, the appeal may judicial separation, a decree between them on 23-8-2004 be We have heard the partie^ the issue. Taking into consideration one year of passing of impugned) been no resumption of cohalbiti praying for passing of decree of separation as passed by the directed that in place of impugn^d of dissolution of marriage be dra^/n Sd/- Dhu'endraMishra 19. Barve <?»i<fl[d<Tj'E Ml*<CTlf "^ fS^ <Pq^l< ^sifiTqan^r after passing ofthe impugned decree ^roceeding could not patch up their Iremain present before this Court. applicant and the respondent are |y identified by their respective counsel. ^re is no possibilfty of any settlement ^n no resumption of cohabitation after |ee of judlcial separation. In these |be altowed and in place of decree of dissolution of marriage solemnized n person as as their counsel.on fhat even after the lapse of more than |decree ofjudicial separation, there has |ion between ^he parties and they are divorce in place of decree of judicial Court, the appeal is allowed. It is decree ofjudicial separation, decree fajnily R.N. Chandrakar Judge lillU'^l-') ^^^"llcWI <l>a(-jl<tfli<it—FS/95—11/2008—1,00,000. J^e^^l'-.- /-,".