mr. noj-^^'«NfSLEBES ,/1<7^^^°\" ^•'"t-'^'^y ^A.^r'l^!l^^ 1^^l^l>' •:y\b>' ^° <s ..^•••' fsy r <^ -y' •^0.1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR HA^) W. P. (227t N0. g'^i & / ^O10 PETITIONER .Q^ox- ^j'^Uc^i^v' ^ /: Kishore Kumar Sharma S/o Kushal Ram Sharma, Aged about 40 years, R/o Chikli, Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon-fC.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^ :1. Smt. AnnapurnaSharma W/o Kishore ~-lPfuc'-"ls^ Kumar Sharma, Aged about 35 years / :2. Master Akash @ Sourabh Sharma, u S/o Kishore Kumar Sharma, Aged about12 years (Minor) Through natural guardian mother Annapuma Sharma W/o Kishore Kumar Sharma, Both R/o M.I.G 1/592 Hudco, Bhilai, Tahsil 6s Distt. Durg-(C.G.) WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OFA WRIT IN THB NATURE OF MANDAMUS, PRQHIBITION, CERTIORARI ETO. OR ANY OTHER DIRECTION OR ORDER TO DO JUSTICE IN THEMATTER )? H!GH COURTOF CHHATTiSQARH AT BiLASPUR Wrjt Petition(227) No. 2780 of 2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Kishore Kumar Sharma Versus Smt. Annapurna Sharma & another. li I/: WRIT PETITION UNOER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Agarwal, J.) Mr. Shushobhit Singh, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Anurag Jha, counse! for respondents. QRALORDER. (20.06.2011) With the consent ofthe parties, the matter is heard finally. 1 Instant petition calis in question the legality and propriety of the order dated 10.5.2010 passed by Second Additional Principal Judge, Famiiy Court, Durg in Case No.248/2009 whereby and whereunder the petitioner's opportunity to leadevidence was closed and the matter was fixed for final arguments. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: The maintenanee application underSection 125 ofthe Cr.P.C. has been filed by respondent No.1 in the year 1999; the matter is fixed tbr petitioner's evidence in ths year 2007, since then . the pgtitibner is regularly seeking time t6 adduce hisevidence. !n the year 09 when the matter was fixed for petitioner's evidence, he moved an application for transfer of the case; later on fhe.transfer petition has been withdrawn. Again the petitioner could not bring his witnesses despite last chance given by the trial Court. !n these circumstances of the case, learned trial Court has ciosed the petitioner's opportunifyto lead evidence. 3. Shri Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner would submif: as a last opportunity petitioner should be afforded an opportunity to lead evidence inasmuch as earlier he could not bring his witnesses as his transfer petition to transfer the case to some other court was pending. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 vehemently opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and wouldsubmit : maintenance case filed by the respondent No. 1 is pending since 1999 in which the petitioner is not able to lead his evidence tili now despite several opportunities jranted to him and, therefore, the order impugned is just and proper and does not call any interference, 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the materiai available on record including impugned order. 6. Undisputedly, the maintenance case was filed in the year 1999; since 2007several opportunities have been granted to the petitioner to lead his evidence, despite that he could not adduce his evidence. In the above facts & circumstances, iearned trial Court vide impugned order dated 10.5.2010 rightly closed his opportunity of teading furtherevidence. 7. In this view ofthe matter, 1 do not find any irregularity leading to manifest injustice tothe petitionerwarranting interference ofthis court under Articie 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. it is weil settled principle of law that this Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Articte 227 of the Constitution of India, should refrain itself from interfering with the order passed by the Court below, except in such cases where perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. 9. Therefore, the petition being and is hereby dismissed. ithout substance is liable to be Sd/- N.K.Agrawal Judge