ANURADHA DUBEY Vs. PRASEN @ LAXMIKANT DUBEY
LAWS(CHH)-2005-1-9
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Decided on January 19,2005

ANURADHA DUBEY Appellant
VERSUS
Prasen @ Laxmikant Dubey Respondents

JUDGEMENT

L.C.BHADOO,J. - (1.) The Petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 27-8-2004 passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in petition No. 50-A/2004 whereby the learned Additional District Judge has rejected the prayer of the Petitioner herein for giving further opportunity for filing written statement on the ground that since summons were served upon the Petitioner herein on 7-5-2004 and 90 days' time has expired on 7-8-2004, therefore, further time cannot be granted to the Respondent to file written statement.
(2.) Brief facts leading to filing of this writ petition are that the Respondent herein filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the Petitioner herein. The summons for appearance and filing reply was issued to the Petitioner herein and same was served upon the Petitioner and she appeared before the Court first time on 7-5-2004. The Petitioner herein appeared before the trial Court, the matter was fixed on 25-6-2004 and on that day an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed on behalf of the Petitioner therein and next date was fixed for filing the reply of the application. On 27-7-2004 another adjournment was sought for filing the reply and on that, next date i.e. 24-8-2004 was fixed for filing the reply. On 24-8-2004, the matter was also fixed for reconciliation as provided under Section 23(2) of the Act and on the said date reconciliation proceedings were also taken up, but settlement could not be arrived, therefore, the matter was fixed for 27-8-2004 for arguments on the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. On 27-8-2004, arguments were heard and the application was decided. Simultaneously, the time for filing written statement of the petition was also asked for which was declined by the trial Court.
(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.