<2-S H!GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DB: Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra & Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar. JJ. Writ Appeal No. 334 of 2010 AppeSJants/ 1. Gopal Singh Judeo, aged about 55 years, Respondents No. 6 S/o Mr. Raghuveer Singh Judeo, to12 2. Nageshwar Singh, aged about 20 years, S/o Mr. Gopal Singh 3. Digvijay Singh, aged about 18 years, S/o Mr. Gopal Singh. 4. Bhagwan Singh, aged about 58 years, S/o Mr. Raghuveer Singh Judeo. 5. Rupesh Singh, aged about 32 years, S/o Mr. Bhagwan Singh 6. Kamlesh Singh, aged about 35 years, S/o Mr. Bhagwan Singh 7. Rajesh Singh, aged about 30 years, S/o Mr. Bhagwan Singh All R/o Vill Kharsiya (Wrongly nnentioned as Kharsuja, Tahsil Kharsiya, Distt. Raigarh Respondents Petitioner Vs. 1. Sheikh Ahmed S/o Sheikh Jee, aged about 31 years, by caste - Musalman, R/o Viliage Sendras, P.S. Malkharoda, Distt. Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) 2. Smt Rajeshwari Singh Judeo, aged about 25 years, W/o Sheikh Ahmed, D/o Gopal Singh Judeo, R/o Vill Sendras, P.S. Malkharoda, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) WritAppeal under Section 2 ofthe Chhattisaarh Hiah Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act. 2006 Present: Shri A.N. Bhakta, counsel for the appellants. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 23rd September, 2010) PerDhirendra Mishra. J .^s"^ .'fif"sl^\ ^ -^/ '^^-:,Xs^': ^ 1. The respondent No. 1 and 2 filed a writ petition before the iearned Single Judge with the averments that they are legally married husband and wife. On the complaint of appeliant No. 1, a missing report was registered, The respondent No. 1 and 2 are residing together happily, as husband and wife. However, due to report iodged by father of the respondent No. 2 (appellant herein), the police authorities are interfering with their matrimoniai iife. 2. Learned Single Judge, on perusal of marriage certificate as well as after recording the statements ofthe respondent No. 1 and 2, observed that they are married couple and living together, as husband and wife. It was further obser^ed by iearned Single Judge that "if the petitioners make any compiaint with the police authorities, the police authorities shall ensure that appropriate protection be provided to the petitioners". 3. The instant writ appeal has been filed by the father and other relatlves of the respondent No. 1 and 2, on the ground that the above order has been passed without notice to them, behind their back, though they have been V ^ m^rked as respondents in the writ petition. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the partles and perused the order of iearned Singie Judge. 5. After going through the impugned order, we find no substance in this appeal and the same deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage itself. Vijay Sd/- Dhirendra Mishar Judge 8d/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge