2026:CGHC:11195 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1341 of 2025 • Smt. Sushila Sinha W/o Harishankar Sinha And D/o Shri Krishna Shankar Shrivastva Aged About 30 Years Caste- Kayasth, R/o Village Godhanpur (Infront Of Vasundhara Bihar) Police Station Gandhinagar, Tahsil Ambikapur District Surguja (C.G.) Present R/o First Floor Next To Street Maa Banbhouri Traders, Near Kattha Factory, Godhanpur, Post Ambikapur Police Station Gandhinagar District Surguja (C.G.)

... Petitioner versus • Harishankar Sinha S/o Late Vijay Shankar Sinha Aged About 38 Years Occupation Private Job Caste Kayasth R/o Mo. Joda Pipal Police Station Ambikapur District Surguja (C.G.)

... Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner : Mr. Rohitashva Singh, Advocate.

For Respondent : Ms. Parwati Suryawanshi, Advocate.

Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

Order on Board

09/03/2026 1. Heard.

2. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 13.11.2025 passed by the Family Court, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.12-A/2024, whereby the application filed under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 by the respondent/plaintiff to re-examine him as witness has been allowed.

Digitally signed by

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/wife submits that the respondent/husband has filed an application for divorce under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the learned Family Court. Written Statement has already been filed, issues have also been framed and thereafter, parties have also led their evidence. The matter was posted for judgment, during said period, aforesaid application was filed, which was allowed by the learned Family Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that when the matter has already posted for judgment, there was no necessity to allow the aforesaid application. The learned Family Court has committed an error in allowing the aforesaid application. He further submits that the respondent/husband by examining himself would bring on record, additional facts, which may have favoured him. Thus, the impugned order is liable to be dismissed.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/husband opposes the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner and supports the impugned order.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material available on record.

6. Be that as it may, ofcourse, the civil suit was posted for judgment and during that course, aforesaid application was filed. The learned Family Court upon examination on the application and also relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shubhkaran Singh Versus Abhayraj Singh and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 536, gave a categorical finding in favour of the respondent/husband by allowing the application, subject to cost of Rs.1,000/-.

7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the respective parties, this Court does not find any irregularity or illegality or any jurisdictional error in the impugned order.

Hence, this writ petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.

8. Interim order granted by this Court vide order dated 17.12.2025 is vacated.

9. Interlocutory application(s), pending if any, also stands disposed of.

Sd/-

(Sachin Singh Rajput)

Judge

Deepti Jha