&lfis V SF^C T^itf-Ll- ^^.^'-^ IN THE HIGH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Vf.P.(C.\ N0.'7/^2- / 2006 Petitioner S^'' «0<?' ^•"^' /••"" '9<A.-^- ^"" Respondent: K. R. Hari S/o. Shri Raghawan Nayar Aged about 43 years R/o- Street No. 5 near Jain Dairy Vidutnagar Durg District Durg (C.G.) Versus Smt. S.Sangeeta W/o- Shri K.R. Hari 40 years Lecturer, Govemment Girl Higher Secondaiy School Bhilai-3, R/o- KCH street Quarter no. 11/B Sector -8 Bhilai, District Duig (C.G.) WRIT PETITION U/A 227 OF THE CONSTrTUTLON OP INDIA XI-HC-78 sn^T^rR.ii'o (raT3llS<ISh11<t> *IIHWI St»*11th 3^ '^i-yid^, oTflu'is, Ridi'Hy .W.P.(£; HQ. ~71^^-/^°^ ^ 200 311^1 4^* (y(3s"<iT) gTcITWHf?cT3n^T Shri Prafull Bhaiat, coii|i Heard on adinission. The petitioner has ffled Coustitution of India, chalj proprie'ty of the order date\ 25/2006 pending in tlie Cou^-t Fainily Court Durg, District Di By tiie aforesakl oi-derj Mlterim application filed und^i Waris Act pennitted the respj acconliug to the tiine schedt C<?tirt. asel for tlie petitioner. 'lvs petition under Article 227 ofthe •nging the legalily, validity aiid i 8.12.2006 passed in Case No. of III Additional Priacipal Judge, -u-g (C.G.5. flie said Court while decidiug an !r Section 12 of the Guardians anf' ladent-inotiier to ineet. her children ile ineutioned. in. the order by the The brief facts,as si\ petitioner, are fhat the petit^i (Matrim.onial) for passing a de) of fhe Hindii Mamage Actj afoi^said silit was filed on fl]| decreed by ti.ie judgm.ent datec( between fhe parties was diss stated ttiat during thc pende| proceedings u/s 11 ofThe Gu the mofher seekaig custod^ Daughter namely Ku. Shuru naniely Master Shreyas aged ofafoicsaid pro;ceectui] ES «bi<i(<-i41-fHiii<iTfftecfl'<Ri'K;i< ^isri^irsn^r titlonei ^ted by leamed counsel for the ioner had earlier filed a civil suit 'ree for divorce uader Section 13 (1] 1955 v-ide No.512-A/2005. The ground of adulteiy. The suit was 2.8.2006 asid the niarriage existini olved by a decree of diyorce. It is icy of the aforesaid civii suit, the itirdians and Wards Act was filed-by of her twe niinor childicn i.e. |ti aged about 11. years aad son |bout 8 years. During the pendency =(n hiteriin application u/s 12 oft3ie ndebCT -^—-—— XI-HC-78 sn^r^T^riq; gSITSIRTTOTR; *<1*1WI shHieh 3^ '<<l<lld'i<, »xfl+l'16,fsloliuy . ^ • P. CQ M'o. -][S^^^ ^ ......-.:....7....•.-... ^. 200 3ii^i yawi ('icl^°"i<T) g^tTW(tf^f3TI^T 2 ifle a&resaid Act was also fSed. bl of fhe aforesaid two children.l iiapugned onler dated 8.12.' A perusal of fhis ordei) order. The trial Court has rt impugned onler regardin^ childi^n is beiag passed wittj. fhe petitioner and the resp4 would show that after takin^ containing fhe tiiae schedulel children has been passed. Leamed couhsel for th4 oider on the grouud t]iat the the fafher has given fhe const offhe Sections 12 & 25 ofthel I have eone throueh tl Undispi'itedly. it is inentioned| passed with the consenf o|! presuniption is that Uie cons^ and unless coutraiy is sliown) not passed with fhe consent o{ It was pomtedly asked for fhe petitioner as to whetl^ fhe pctitioner fhat the order '!( fhe parties, fhe petitioneit inodt&cation of such order bril tt 4il<<fi-|ifl-< 41>1c11'^tecfl'<Rl«K ^isri^irsn^r her asking : the interua custody It is on tiiis m.terim application, ftie 2<p06 has been passed. would show fhat it is a consent lfccori.ed ia the order itself that the ideetiue tim.e of the mother with fhe i3ie consent ofboth tlie parties i.e. ?ndent. The coutent.s of the order L^ their consent. only, the said order for ineetine of the niofher with her petitioner assails the validity of the frisd Court has wrongly recorded that •nt and the order is in contravention Guardiaus and Wards Act. contents of fhe im.pugned order. in the order that. the same 1ias been f bofh the parties, tlierefore, the Ints recorded in the order are correct it cannot be held fh.at tlie order was |fbofh fhe parties. jiy this Coiirt to the leamed counsel er after comi&g to the knowledge of jias been passed with tlie cousent of ba.s filed aay application for faeins to the notice of the Judge that -.0. w XI-HC-78 NIHWI a>*iith TS^^IPTRra', SrfrOT?, Rcliuy V ,P.CO Mo, 7/ ^^/^o,& WgT—••••-••••••••••/^; 201 ^ w^\w*(v^^) s^ireKBfi^sn^i —S ^iPlfesfrT iTOcffiffe^f rf^RCT' ^srf^TTsn^r &e nas not given aay such co^isent( On this, teanied coiuisel for ftie petitioner submits that |iio such appUcation has been filed before the trial Court and ( befoi-e fhis Court. !n fhe facts and circuiii irectly this petition has been filed [itances ofthe case, I am. aot inclined to entertain such contention^ raised by leai-ned counsel for the petitioner agaiast fhe clear c\it mentioning ni the orier that tiie order was passed with tlie cdnsent of the oetitioner. If the order was passed vrithoiit takiag ft) cousent was wroagly recorded flie petitioner iuas free to consent has wrongly beeii re^ [e consent of the petitioner and his by the trial Co'urt iii its orier, then |niove tlie said Court saying that his (•orded, but tiie same has not been doae by tiie petitioner. There appears to be no plegalily m. fhe oider passed by the tria? Court on fhe face of it. M|oreover, fhis Court, while hearing a petition under Article 227 of cc ncerued wifh. fie decision ri fhe Constitutioii of Tndia, is m.ain1y ^akiag process of flie Coiirt and not with fhe decision of the Co14rt. 1 tlo not find any fllegality or infirmily in flie decision mal|:ing process wliich the Court has •0-. The petition being devoitl of inerit, the sanie is Uable to be dismissed and it is dismissed fc limine without notice to the other side. Coasequenfly, M.W.P. Nc| . 5043/2006 stan^s disposed of. Sd/- SunaKumarSinha Judge P.T.O. ^^