c .s^t IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.NO.4-3^-8 / 2005 Petitioner ^ Champa Bai W/o Sudarshan Prasad Kurre, Aged attout 56 years, R/o Urja Nagar Dipka Gevra PTojeet, Dist: Korba-fC.g.) Versus Resoondents ^/ ^t^/ y^y ^ 'y^s' fW •^'^y v':^ t:..- The General Manager, Gevra Prqjeet S.E.C.L,Korba-(C.G.] The regional Commissioner (CMPF) Seepat road, BilaSpur-l'C.G.) SLfershan Prasad Kurre fc S/o Shri Bisahu Kurre, Aged about 60 years R/o Dipka Project Gevra, At^ryesent at viHage Limtara Post OfBce Bisbrampur, Dist: Raipur-(C.G.) 2. nN WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 / 227 OF THE CONSTTTtmON OF INDIA ParticuIarsofthePetitioner As per cause tftle. Particulars ofthe Respondents Aspercausetitle. I ^^^^fe.^^:?^'i^N^1a»^g^^^^gg8^g^s^®BSSiil»!(wm!B«B!we%)i st^s=»^^ ^'^^^^mB^&ainweswaRmaBa^^; vjTncl •^WIri'y, tPTll'a'l®,(qrtl'M^ ITTOCCT a?m^ -^••^"^^•^•l--^200^ an^iwiftqte gqTsn^awrai "^^& 3n^?i <ra^ (^qt^qcri) ^giSR^)%aa^!CT <bl^fd41'<HI*fril''t"fol<It '<1"1<<;1< ^aiRnaii^?! 7-10-200S Heard Mr.Praftjfl Bharat,cc| Th®petitioner who is the ^ writ petition under Articto 226/22? Bnsel forthe petitioner, on admission. nfe of respondent No.3 has preferred this of the Constitutionof India, witt a prayer that respondents No.1 & 2 bedir^cted to attach the proportionate portion of the retira! dues of respondent No.p to satisfy the decree passed in favour of thepetitioner. The case of the petitioner is that she is the mamed wife of respondent No.3, however, respondent No.3 d^veloped some relations with another lady and thereafter, started ill-treating f^e patitioner. Thersfore, tha petib'oner filsd a petition under Seetion 125 of| allowance of Rs.500/- per month| Shereafter, the petitioner again mo^ Hindu Adoption and Maintenance entered into between the petitior maintenance amount was seftted amount which was ordered in favc the Cr.P.C. in which the maintenance was ordered in h^r favour. However, 6d anappiication untierSection 18ofthe |Act, 1956, in which a compromise was |er herein & respondent No.3, and the as Rs.800/- per month inctuding 'the [ur of the petitioner under Section 125 af !<St the Cr.P.C. The amount of maint^nance has been paid up to 3'!SI August, 2005. However, respondent No.3 application for increase of the ma petJtioner before the 3 Additional «t stands retired on 31"' August, 2005. An intenance aWcswance was moved by the 3istrict Judge, Bilaspur. After retirement, respondent No.3 is iiksly to withdrai|v all the retirai benefits ahd consequsntly ths petitioner will not be able to rfecover her maintenance altovrancs from respondent No.3. As the Court of3f Additional District Judg®is lying vacanf, therefore, no order is being passe<p by that Court in respect of the prayer made by the petitioner for direeting •esponaents No.1 & 2 toattach the retirai SP/FS/2005-20,000 TracTT^ITq? ' <dCTi '<iiqirt«,u>-nl<(i<i<»,Rni'(iy< (^^ ^200^ 3TI^?T tRT (*jc|(^c|^) SII^STqiTR'li* aaiT3ni?rapiiw ^RnsR^ifta an^i -^ <RI«[<')<Ill*1l*IC»T^'ls'<9'clulX^IX ^art^ran^a Ca.-Ktf^' R^1 benefits of respondent No.3. !n filed. On enquiry it was informe<) has already been posted in th^ Bilaspur, therefore, the petitioneit Judge, Bilaspur for urgent and !t is made ciear that even the CQncemed District Judge to al| Presiding Officer, so that the urgertt The writ petition is dispos^< direction to the petitioner to Biiaspur, for appropn'ate orders. In view ofthis order, M.(W,)f ti^ cireumstances, this writ petition has been by the Registry that the Presiding Ojficer . Court of 3rd Additional District Judge, can approach the 3rd Additionat District ap(jropriate order in this matter. any Court is iying vacant It is the duty or |ot the work of that particuiar Court to other nature ofworkshould not suffer. s^d of, at the admission stage itself, with a ap^roach the 3 Additiona! District Judge, )P.No.3974/2005aisostandsdJsposed6f. . Sd/- LC.Bhadoo Judge iP/FS/2005-20,000 ^