r^ , IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASP WMT PETITION (Art.2271 NO.E OF 2011 PETITIONER Defendaat ...^ ^'••' ^t^ ^^y ^••^•y ^y ^' ^' ..• y^y Smt.ShUpi Jayaswal D/o Shri Laxman Prasad Gupta W/o Alok Jayaswal, By Caste Jayaswal, aged about 28 years, Occupation unemployed, R/o. Near Kundla Devi Hospital, Gupta Colony, Darri Para, Ambikapiir, P.S and TahsU Ambikapur, Distt.Surguja (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENT Plaintiff "^-.. \:^ f^l Q^ Alok Jayaswal S/o Shri Sitaram Jayaswal, By Caste Jayaswal, aged about 32 years, Occupation Service, R/o Patel Para, Korba, P.S., Tahsil and Dista-ict Korba (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA The petitioner, above named, inost hiunbly and respectfully begs to submit as under: - ; DetaUs of the petition': - •»• r*7//8"T ~i^ .& l' .% <<\ --^s^ ^^ frltPetition(227) f^ics.-f^ys^^a^f intr'lu.itu:! awitiMLEEh Smt. Shilpi Jayaswat Alok Jayaswal t Kyitilitit.It •L-.Hon!lble^jr.N,fC_AgarwaU^) -. Sunii Sahu, counsel for the petitioner. (21.10.2011) Heard on admission. 1. !n a suit for divorce filed by the respondent, the petitioner filed an appllcation for permitting her to ask the questions regarding respondent's cruel behaviour with her. The trial Court rejected her prayer obsen/ing rsspondent's suit is not based on the ground of cruelty, in the eariier suit it has been decided it is the petitioner who was oehaving with cruelty with the respondent. wouid resi theal: has b no re; Shri Suni! Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submit: the trial Court has wrongly disallowed the petitioner's ion regarding respondent's cruel behaviour. A decree of judiciai separation has already been passed in t's. favour on the ground that petitioner was cruel with him, bove decree has been affirmed by this Court and the present suit seen filed by the respondent on the ground that there has been iumption of cohabitation as between the parties to the marriage period qf one year or upwards after the passing of a decree for separation In a proceeding to which they were parties. iudicia 4. !n view of above, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Tr-thunal has not commltted any illegality in rejecting petitioner's prayer to ask questions regarding respondent's crue! behaviour with pR her warranting interference of this Court under Articte 227 of the Constitution of india. 5. For the reasons mentioned v/ithout substance is liabte to be and is t No order as to costs. i, the petition being ismissed. 1 • L