IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE IN CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR <ft.^) ..^ 1 ^el° W.P.No, .t.15pj. Petitioner Non Petitioner ^f^' /1^'^°< s%^; .-•^5 M.P. Markande F/o Shri Late S.P.Markande, Age (S^), Resident - New Adarsh Nagar, Bank Colony, Durg, Tahsil and Jila Durg. VERSUS <v-'- Respondent Petitioner Smt. Usha (Dhanmat bai) W/o M.P. Markande Age (46), Resident - Potia Road, Dhiprapara Durg, Tahsil and Jila Durg. WRIT PETITION UNDR ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITU - TION OF INDIA. ">' HIGH CCTJRT OF CHHAmSGARH KV BllASPlffl Sinate Bench: Hon'bte Shri JusticePradtant Kumw Mishra PETITIONER Non PetBioner RESPONDENT Pdffioner Wrtt PetiBcm <227t No.1150 / 2010 M.P.Martaund® ^ Vereus Smt.Usha(Dhanmatbai) Shri hteno} Paranjpe, coyreel tor the petitionar. - WRIT PETmON UNDERARTICIE 227 OF THECONSTmmWI OE ffSEOA ;- ' ; ^'^' !.l;,'%^ S-s^ ORALORDER (18.03^01^ In pnweedings initiated by the re^iondentAwfe under Se(rtioiw9 of the Hindu Mamage Act^ 19561w i^ituUpn of coiqugal t^, thet •M^^g'i.at.i.-i.ijK- .. ••-g petftioner / hustami prdBired an appUcation under Secfion ^^^^^if x"'sWrfseiriay^ the Act Taasmg an otqecUon that the suit be diarassedaas itAa&steewN submitted after inonUnarte delay. Accordii^ to ttie husbaid they mamage had takai place in the year 1966 aaid thftpresent wS\ ";;i^i?'': proceedir^ have been iniUatedinltre mwito <rf J^ there te no pteusftite explanadon for the detey. , (2) The Family Cpurthasdtsmissed^preltomiary<^ ^\. the subject applk^on and h^ observ^ Ah^^ sa ot4e<^ont^^a^^ "'"'^^•••--7-."--".yp'~-'.^'^:-"y.,^^.^^^ shall be deaR wtth at the time of final adjiKacation. White re^ ppeHminary <rt»jection fhe famity Court ha® obswved wthat<teet respondent had initiated proceecfings ftw grant ofmahitenaiwe inwleK -aai, .•'^.::,y,,^:tS.:S.,.fj,^;S!l SectKMi 125 of Cr.P.C. ni U»year 1983 and thereafter fte f»titioner -sii^ had initiated divoroe ixoceediigs in V year 2000 and4hen*a@a|i <n [the year 2006, therefore wfthout recorelu^ evidence ttieyap^eaBtAi ^.^A, ^. -2,- under Section 9 of the Huidu Marriege Act cannot be dismissed at thei initialslage. (3) Having perused the wcter and atter hearing coimsd fbr ih® petitioner, this Court is of the ^nnion thaft the in^igned orelerdo^^wt; caU for any interference in exerase o( power unttecArticte 227 atthe Constftution of Imlia. (4) Aocwdir^ly, the wrtt petition te <ttBmissed. Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge ^