HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA8PUR Writ Petition (Q No. 4942 of 2007 PETITIONER RESPONDENT Smfc Sheela Sm^i @ Madhu Sin^h W/o Samkeshwar Sin^i, aged about 36 years, R/o Sector-1 C, 349 TS Balco, Korfea, District Korba (CG). VERSUS Dr. Kamkeshwar Sin^i S/o Shankar Prasad Aged about 40 yeais R/o Primary Health Caiter, Ma-dapal, Tafasil Kondagaon District Bastar (CG). (WRTT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF 'l'HE CONSTfriJTlON OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'Ue Mr. Satfah K. Asna»otri.S.) ! Present : Shri Y.C. Shanna, Advocate for the pelitioaer. Shri V.A. Gowardhan witfi Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocates for Ae respondent ORALQRDER (Psissed OB 15^ day ofJasisaiy, 2009) Heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties. 1. 'niepetitionfirhastiledanapplieati<munderfheprovisionsofSecti<»i 13 of fhe Hiadu Maniage Act, 1955 (tbr short tfae Act, 1955') tbr divorce betbre Family Court, Bila^ur. The allegation of the petitinier is that respondent/husbaad, during e?dgtaice of her marriage wi1fa tfae . respondentteisband wfaich was solemnized on 1.05.95, has solemnized 2ri marriage in Gayatd Shakti Peeth, Mandala (for diort the Peelfa'). 2. The petitioner made MI application under Ride 7 oftte Fanrily Courts .Rule, 1988(forshQrttheRute, 1988). 3. The contention ofthe leamed c<wmsel appearing for the petiti<ma' is that, in Ifae family disputes, where the responitetit/husbuid has solenuiized 2 naarri^e, it is difficult tbr the petitioner wife to obtam certified copy oftfie mamage certificate, puiportedly issued by Ae Peeth. Therefbre, it is necessary in tfae interest ofjustice that Itae Manager oftiie said Peeth may be summoned to appear with tfae records, ifany, available witfa him. The ^ Sahu 4. petitioner is duly married wife and thereatter during subsistence of tfae mamed, the respondent/husband has goleimrized 2 vssarwge, which is an offence punishable under the provisions oflaw. Per contra, leamed counsel appearmg fbr tfae respondeiit/husbandsubmits that the petrtioner was given opportunity to obtain certified copy of the marriage certificate and pa-oduce the same before tbe court. The petitioner has not availed the opportunity, Thus, Ihe court below has rightly rejected her application for summoning the Manager ofthe Peetta. 5. Bs that as it may, in flie Indian eoiitext, it is difficult for vrife to obtain a certified cppy oflhe 2 marriage, and in such facts and situation which are alleged by the petitioner, it is theretbre desirable in tfae a<lnumstrati<m of' justice that Ifae Maiager of the said Peeth may be summoned an Ifae eost and e3q>ense ofthe petitioner fbr propa' adjudication ofthe dispute. 6. For ifae aforementioned reasons, the impugied cader dated 08.05.2007 (Annexure P/l) is set aside and this petition is allowed. No wder asto costs. 7. Consequently, pending applications, ifany, stand disposed of Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge ¥'- ^-'ocn-'a—-'F-7 ^-