\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. 1227) No. 2357/11 PETITIONBR:- Applicant Versus RB8PONDENT: Noa-Applicaat Shaista Baao wife of Qamrul Aziz, Aged about 34 years, R/o Bagdona, Near L.I.C. BuUdiag, Tahsit Ghoda Dongri, Distdct Betul (M.P.). Qaninil Aziz S/o Shri Shafi-ur Rehmaa, Aged about 40 years, Advocate R/o Taiba Chawk Talapara, Bilaspur, Tahsil & District Bilaspur (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDBR ARTICLB 227 OF THB CONSTITUTION OP INDIA. (SB :HonybIe Mr. T.P.Siiarma, J.) Present:- Shri K.A. Ansari, 8r. Advocate with Shri R.L, Bajpai, Advocate for the petitioner. Respondent not noticed. ORAL- ORDER (Passedoa 25/Q8/2Q11) 1, By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India petitioner has challenged the legaUty aad propriety of fhe order dated 28/4/2011 passed by Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur (C.G.) ia Civil M.J.C, No. 05/2011 whereby appUcation for mterim custody filed ia petition filed on behalf of tlie present petitioner under Section 25 read witii Section 7 of fhe Guardians aad Wards Act^ 1890 (ia short 'ftie Act3) has beea disposed of 2, Shri K.A. Ansad, Sr. Advocate wifh Shri R.L. Bajpai, Advocate for the petitioner is heard. 3. Order hnpugned, copy of other docuinents and copy of ofher petitions penised. 4. As per copy offhe document mitiaUy one appUcation uuder Section 97 of the Code of Crimiinal Procedure, 1973 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sahpur District Betul M.P, for custody of her chUd which was ..."-.T^ ^'•- .,^"A%, i' / '" |tS3S|,| .A^" ^' aHowed same is still under challenge at fhe iastance of respondent before the First Additional Sessions Judge, Betul. Durmg pendency of the aforcsaid revisiou petition respondent has filed aa appUcation under Section 25 of fhe Act before thie Judge, PaoiUy Court/ BUaspur ia Misc. Case No. 40/2010 in which prcsent petitioner has filed written stateinent and has also filed coiinter claim under Section 25 of the Act for custody of her child naxaely Rida Kausar aged about 3 Va years. Present petitioner also filed one petitlon under Order 7 Rule 11 read wifh Section 151 of fhe CivU Procedure Code, 1908 for disinissal ofclaioi/petition filed on behalf of fhe respondent before fhe FamUy Court, Bilaspur. After providiag opportunity of hearmg to the parties Judge, Family Court, BUaspur has allowed the petition aad disraissed the petition filed on behalf of fhe respondent vide order dated 7/1/11. At the tiaie of passiag such order of disiaissal of petition Judge, Family Court has not passed aay order relatmg to counter clami fUed on behatf of the present petitioner fhereafter present petitioner has filed present petition on the same ground aad on fhe same cause of action. At fhe tmie of passiag order under Order 7 Rule 11 read wifh Section 151 of the Civfl Procedure Code, 1908 Judge, Family Court was under obUgation to pass appropriate order relatiag to counter claim. In absence of such order at tihis stage it is dtGBicult to hold fhat counter clami filed on behatf of fhe petitioner which was iadependeutly niamtaiaable before fhe Judge Fainily Coiirt has been dismissed fh.at too wifhout providiag aa opportunity of heariag to fhe petitioner, Consequenfly, present petition is staiids disposed ofwifh. ftie foUowmg direction/liberty fhafc- petitioner is at Uberty to ffle appropriate appUcation for continuaace of her counter claim filed ui Misc. Case No. 40/2010 before the Judge, ^ -<.: -J7- ^' ^ FamUy Court aad if such appUcation is filed fhen Judge, Famity Court shall decide the appUcation on its own merits wifhout mUuenced oforder offhis Court. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge y-