.u’ , v“ ‘ s"‘ a%“h‘3é o ..-"'B W $3 §n§ nch AT BILASPUR $i$ ge R, BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH leoé C” :1 : t. Rekha Ver, W/o. Mukesh arma, Aged About— 24 years, R/o. h i i Present Address- Chattisgarh Vidy'ut Mandal Colony, Ragarh, Tahsl and Distriet— Raigarh (C.G.). VERSUS : X’ukesh Verma, S/o. m Pakash ‘ Varma, Age abo— 30 years, Occupation- vt. Employee, R/0.— Behin Gudakhu Factory, Sankar Naar, Bilaspur (C.G.). APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2 OF ‘ HINDU MARRIAGE ACT- 1955. w ;2é $ w FIRST APPEAL No. / 2995— APPgLLANT m ma V £SPONDENT M O r d ut P d h g MEMORANDUM OF 8 XI—C-ZZ H Heard an admissior: and M.iC.)P.No.23/2006 for gram? of smy. Marriage be’rween fhe appaiicm? and raspondem was solemnizgd m1 11.62.200G. They lived Togefher as husband and wife. Ouf of ‘I’heirl wedlock, a 'gir‘i child was born $Tar‘i’ed Hving separmely‘ After year, 'fhey mufuaHy agread 1'0 diassive 'fheir marriage ‘He. They fiiad cm appHcaTion under Secfion 13 E c1 decree by mufuaf cansenf mwd‘ arrmggmen? for cusfody of Their i mom‘hs bu? no one wi‘rhdraw ’Thg heid re7conciiia‘rion proceeding; agree To join moTrimonioi reio? s’roTemen‘i’ of *rhe oppeiionf and r4 simed “rho? They are living eepo fiqeir iiving “roger‘ner, i'hey have ‘marriaga and odso in Their 3m agreed in befween Them regardii due considerai‘ion of facts ant ga‘ tea, :eamed Trioi CourT passed impugned judgmen’r and Clem? 03.03.2006 Shri‘AmH Shawna, counse 1 for f‘ne appdEanf. on 17.02.2001. The: reaffar, They iving Separmely for mare. ‘Hqcm done of 'r‘ne Hifldu Marriage ACT-1955' fer im Their pefii'ion; fhey aisa made (m c‘niid. Learned Cour’r beiow keg)? f‘ne appiica’rion panding for six r consent Learned Court beiow aiso buf barn husband and wife did no? ens. Learned ‘iriai Cour’r recorded aspondem‘, in which ‘h‘qey cafegcricaiiy rafeiy and There i3 no possibiih‘y of mumaiiy agreed ‘io dissoive fheir femen’r suppor‘i’ed ‘i'he arrangemen‘r 1g “Hoe cusroo’y of “their child, After recording si’m‘emen‘r of bofh The XI-HC-22 x fwm ‘ W 12%? WW%WWI?IWWK as'a%awam padma which The marriage soiemnizad on 11 dissoivad‘ md for“ cus’rody of Thz c passer} under Seci‘ion 26: of ‘rhe who‘d Marriage Act Oniy confenfimu raised by 1%12 Tim? ieamed Trial 'Caur‘? hés né jm respac? k) cusfatjy of The mmoh chih 5ecficm 26 of 111a Hihdu Mar ‘fw cus‘i‘ady of chHdraaq To be made; In case no arrangamam is made, or applico?§on, the mower rela‘ring "o cusfody of chiio‘mm hem i3!" by The Comf. ‘ dicw‘ion and pawar hcis pa3sad fha wfrlich dog's nG‘r caH far cmy’ corxsidered aMvrdem am be ,imssac Wig Cour? wa?! wi‘rhin i‘fs Jurii mafgugned juégmamf mad decree irc‘i’erfer-ence. The coopeoi' is habk f0 be dismisgad summarW; fhzrm‘ora 3+ iso dismissad m liming. Tm vEew of The above Oder, M c'af. ' 132.2000 ba-rweian The par'fies was wild,‘ necessary orders haw: beer: appeilcmf durmg’fhe argumem‘ is‘ isdicfian To pass’rmy order'Mfh J. riage Ac? dearly made provi3ia‘ns by The CGurT m The decrae i'i‘séii? ‘fer‘ passing ‘Hqa decree upm The &(C.)P.No.23,/EOO(3 s‘mhds c‘isposead Sd/— V.K. Shrivastava Judge W®W