USHA TRIPATHI Vs. CHAKRADHAR TRIPATHI
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
USHA TRIPATHI W/O CHAKRADHAR TRIPATHL
CHAKRADHAR TRIPATHI S/O SHRI RAJKUMAR TRIPATHI
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)THE petitioner has filed this petition, impugning the order dated 28-1-2008 (Annexure P/7), passed by the Family court, Ambikapur, District Surguja in Civil suit No. 36-A/2007 (Chakradhar Tripathi v. Usha Tripathi), whereby the application of the petitioner dated 16-1-2008 for grant of time to file written statement was rejected.
(2.)LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the respondent are wife and husband, respectively. Their marriage was solemnized on 22-5-1998 at Patthalgaon, District jashpur and within the wedlock, one son was born on 15-3-1999. On 24-7-2007 the respondent/husband filed an application under Section 13 of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short "the Act, 1955") for grant of a decree of divorce against the petitioner/ wife, in the Family Court, Ambikapur. The application was registered as Civil Suit No. 36-A/2007. The notice was issued to the petitioner and the case was fixed for 18-9-2007 for conciliation. The petitioner appeared on 18-9-2007. In the conciliation proceeding, the petitioner had shown her desire to live with her husband/respondent. On 18-9-2007 the petitioner filed an application under Section 24 of the Act, 1955 and the case was fixed for 21-9-2007. Thereafter the case was fixed on various dates. On 16-1-2008 the petitioner filed an application for grant of time to file written statement. On 25-1-2008 the petitioner filed an application for grant of permission to engage a counsel, which was allowed and the case was fixed for 28-1-2008 for order on the application of the petitioner for grant of time to file written statement. By the impugned order dated 28-1 -2008 the application of the petitioner for grant of time to file written statement was rejected by the trial court. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition.
(3.)SHRI Subhash Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that on 18-9-2007 the case was fixed only for conciliation proceeding between the parties and there was no order for filing written statement. Though the conciliation proceeding failed on 18-9-2007 but the case was not fixed for filing written statement. Learned trial Court has erred in holding that the time for filing written statement was expired. The petitioner could engage a counsel on 25-1-2008, as such learned trial Court ought to have granted time to the petitioner to file written statement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.