•AOV AHHOO yimvd SHJ, *ioqy>6i NOUOSS HaaNn avaddv ASHIJ ^-^ (.rj^ ('O'O) §^na^OU^STQ ^ HSMBJ, '^pOJ^]A[ 9§BHTA O/^ 'sjeoA: 09 woqe ps§B <urejni.[;ipi o/s q^nmqssa mey iSLreji^ ^uBoiiaav ANaaNOdsaH SnSHSA ^.w;<?---""pmeo .....^^y^^^^ ,,„,:.. hff ^^W^^ <^_._^._ . '('°"0)§Jna^wsTa ^^^^^.^••-••••••^<!• <iq9pj9puno IisqBi~<u§uo^'9§BH^^"'l .^•^f^^""""" '^ o/y 'sjBsA sf, ^noq^ p9~§^ 'urey reSireji^ O/AY reg I^MSBJ^S -^mg "' a ^ueoiiddB-ua^ XNvnajdv i—@©€^ L ^T/^ 'ON [mt IBaddy ^S.ITJ ^ndsvTia XV HHVObUJLAVHHO dO AHnOO HOIH aaa.NOH aHJ,-Ni ysff^ .h ^i0\^ HJGHCOURTOFCHHATTiSGARH:BSLASPUR Division Bench Hon'bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri & Hon'bie Shri Prashant K. Mishra, JJ. AepejjanV Non-Appiicant RssoondenV Appilcant First A&Deai (M) No.6 of 2010 Smt. Saraswat's Bai Versus Flrangi Ram Deshmukh (Flrst AppeaS under Sectlon 19 (1) offr^e Famiiy Coyrts Act) Present > Shri C.R. Sahu, counsei for the appesiant. ORDiRIQRALl (Passsd on thls 11tn day of January, 2010) Per Satish K. Aanihotri. J. 1» By thss appeat, the appeilant seeks to challenge the iegatity and- vaiidity of the order dated 25-7-2009 (Annexure - A/2) passed by the First Addltional Principaj Judge, Famiiy Court, Durg, in case No. 101-A/2007 whereby the application fiied by the appellant under Sectlon 11 of the Code of Civii Procedure, 1 908 (for short "the CPC") has been rejected. 2. Learned counsei appearing for the appeSianywlfe aubmits that the appeilant has fiied an appSication under Section 11 of the CPC in a divorce petition fiied by the respondenVhusband under Sectlon 13 (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short "the Act, 1955") on the ground that earlier the divorce petition ^led by the respondenVhusband was dismsssed by the First Additlonat District Judge, Durg, by judgment and decree dated 25-9-1990 (Annexure - A/4) passed in civil suit No.5W1989, therefore, the repeat divorce petitlon on the simlSar facts and grounds after Sapse of about 17 years Is not at ail malntainable. The appiication filed by the appeSiant under 6? Sectlon 11 of the CPC has been dismlssed by the Court beiow by the impugned order dated 25-7-2009 (Annexure - A/2) wJthout considering the facts and circumstances of the case in its Setter and spirit. Thus, this appeal. 3. We have heard ieamed counsel appearing for the appeSlant, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. 4. it Is not in dispute that the divorce petitlon filed by the respondeny husband was dismissed by the Court beiow by judgment and decree dated 25-9-1990 (Annexure - A/4) when the fact of acquittai of the famiiy members of the respondent was not avaiiable. Suteequentiy, they were acquitted from th®crjminal Court. The appeliant has lodged a report agalnst her in-Saws. for commjssion of offence punishabie under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, in which the famiiy. members of the respondent were acqultted by judgment dated 6-1-1995. In thls way, the appelfant used to har-ass the respondent and his famiiy members, Therefore, the respondenV husband fiiad another dlvorce petition, which is pendlng consideration before the Court below, In the second divorce petition She husband has not taken the similar facts and grounds as raised in the first divorce petition, which wa^ dismissed in the year 1990. The appeiiant has faiSed to make out a case for interference of this Court. The leamed Court below has rightly considered and rejected the application fiied by the appeliant under Section 11 of the CPC. 5. We are of the considered opjnion that under the facts sjtyation of the case as aforestated, no interference is warranted, The order passed by th©Court below is just and proper. S. Before parting with thls order, it Is made otear that the observations ma.de hereinabove may not be understood as the opinion of this Court on the merits of the case. 7. In the resuit, the appeat faiis and is disnnlssed at the nnotion stage itsejf. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Gowri Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge