Smt. Gajyantri Paikra v. Sanjay Singh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR FAM No. 115 of 2015 (Arising out of judgment/order dated 05.08.2015 in Civil Suit No. 79A/2014 of the learned Family Court, Ambikapur) • Smt. Gajyantri Paikra W/o Sanjay Singh Paikra, Aged About 24 Years Caste- Kanwar, R/o Village- Dhurena, Post- Dipika, Police Station- Dipika, Revenue And Civil District- Korba (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

• Sanjay Singh S/o Subran Singh, Aged About 30 Years CasteKanwar, Occupation- Service At 10 Wahini, Chhattisgarh Bal Surguja, R/o Village- Dumarmuda, Post- Gopalpur, Police Station- Darri, Revenue And Civil District- Korba (Chhattisgarh), Present R/o Trikon Chowk, Kedarpur, (House Of Tiduram Kushwaha), Police Station- Nagar, Tahsil- Ambikapur, Revenue And Civil District- Surguja (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondent For Appellant Shri D. Kushwaha, Advocate For Respondent Shri D.N.Prajapati and Ms Rabiya Khan, Advocates Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel Order On Board 20/09/2017

1. The appellant would challenge the judgment and decree passed by the Family Court allowing the respondent's application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short the Act, 1955) for restitution of conjugal rights.

2. Both the parties have made allegations and counter allegations against each other, however, in course of

hearing, learned counsel for the parties would jointly inform that during pendency of the present appeal, the respondent husband has moved an application under Section 13 of the Act, 1955 for grant of divorce. Learned counsel for the appellant would also submit that the appellant does not want to live with the respondent.

3. In view of the above, since a divorce petition has already been filed by the respondent, in whose favour a decree for restitution of conjugal rights has been allowed by the Family Court, the impugned decree has become redundant and meaningless, because as on the date both the parties are not willing to reside together.

4. The appeal, therefore, deserves to be and is hereby disposed of without any opinion or finding on merits. However, as agreed by the parties, it is observed that the impugned decree shall not furnish a ground to the respondent husband for seeking divorce under Section 13 (1-A) (ii) of the Act, 1955.

5. The appeal stands disposed of.

Sd/- Sd/- Judge Judge Prashant Kumar Mishra Arvind Singh Chandel Akhilesh