BEFORE THE H!GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT PETITIONERS CAfa*&-:S) ^ESH ^ ^v/y- .^ssy <%y -^yl. ^•'.^' / <^ &- ^S;'-S5"faE3Jj. •.§\^. ^ '^ '%, 1 &.' RESPONDENT NoNftPpL'K.fi^n ^ BILASPUR WP227..6^^./2010 1. Aswani Bai w/o Shri Uday Narayan Mishra Aged 45 (Now 48) Years R/o Thethawarpara, Village^ P.S. Jamui District Durg (C.G.) 2. Kuleshwar (Minor) S/o Shri Uday Narayan Mishra Age 3 (Npw 6) »o<t\ 'TFl>-0^'>j..r?OT>it7I. AVKrA/aA-imid. CnU.aJl^'ctn Sm^°W)^'^a.nt Ool A " years^ R/o Thethawarpara^ Village, 3b.muJ!, P.S. Jamul DistrictDurg (C.G.) VERSUS Uday Narayan Mishra S/o Late Rajdhar Mishra Aged About 48 years (Now 51) R/o ZBiynuJL Thethawarpara, ViSlage,^ P.S. Jamui District Durg (C.G.) Permanent Address: Village Mangi P.0. Mangi P.S- Chakghat Dist. Rewa (M.P.) \^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR QUASHMENT OF ORDER DATED 15.12.2009 PASSED BY SHRI SHIV MANGAL PANDEY SECOND ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT DURG fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SiB: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition f227) No. 636^010 PETITIONERS : Aswani Bai and another Versus RESPONDENT : Uday Narayan Mishra Appearance: Shri L.C. Dash, counsel for the petitioners. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTIGLE 227 OF THE coNSTnunoN OF WWA ORALORDER (17.02.2011) Heard- (2) In proceeding under section 125 of Cr.P.C. the Family Court has closed petitioners/claimants evidence on the ground that the matter is pending since nine years. (3) Leamed counsel for the petitioners Would submit that on an earlier occasion the Family Court directed for a DNA test of the petitioner against whichW.P. No. 6144/2006 was preferred in the High Court. Ih the said writ petition an interim order was passed that the proceedings may go on but final order shall not be passed. (4) He would submit that because of this interim order the petitioner could not lead eyidence. (5) In the impugned order leamed Judge ofthe Family Courf has observed that'since High Court has not stayed the further t^froceedings, the petitioner should have led evidence. h (6) On perosal of the documents available in the record of this writ petition partieulariy the interim order passed by this High Court in W.P. No. 6144/2006, itappears that leamed Judge ofthe Family Court hastaken a very strict view ofthe matter while closing the petitioners right to lead evidence. (7) Leamed counsel for the petitionerswould submit at bar that the said W.P. No. 6144/2006 has also been decided during tfais period and now therefore the petitioner wants to proceed with the case under Section 125 ofCr.P.C. (8) The proceedings pending before the FamilyCourt has been iiiitiated under Section 125 ofCr.P.C for grant ofmaintenance and ifpetitioners are not granted opportunity to lead evidence, they are likely to suffer irreparable loss in as much as their claim may be dismissed for want of evidence and in such event their life may becpme miserable. In fhis yiew of the matter this Court deems it proper to grant opportiinity to the petitionere to lead evidenee to prove their entitlement to claim maintenance fi'om the respondent/husband. (9) In viewofthe above, theimpugned order is set aside. (10) The petitioner shall lead evidenee .on the date fixed by fhe court and the leamed Judge ofthe Principal Court shall do well to dispose ofthe •proceeding as soon as possible and preferably within a period of six months fromthe date ofpresentation ofcertified eopy ofthis order. (11) The writ petition stands allowed in the above terms. Sd//- PrashantKumar Mishra Judge Cy^