SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ritesh Patkar @ Nobel Patkar vs Gayatri Namdev 98 Sa/143/1990 … on 21 August, 2018

1

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

Writ Petition (227) No. 677 of 2018

1. Ritesh Patkar @Nobel Patkar, aged about 35 years, S/o Omprakash Patkar,
R/o Near Reliance Tower, Tulshi Nagar (Behind Krishna Nagar), Gudiyari,
Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.)…………(Plaintiff)
—- Petitioner

Versus

1. Gayatri Namdev, aged about 31 years, D/o Chandra Prakash Namdev,
through Pankaj Namdev, R/o Near Devkripa Hospital, New Rajdhani Motor
Driving School, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil and Distric Raipur
(C.G.)………(Defendant No. 1)

2. Pankaj Namdev, aged about 31 years, S/o Chandra Prakash Namdev, R/o
Near Devkripa Hospital, New Rajdhani Motor Driving School, Shankar
Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil and Distric Raipur (C.G.) ……..(Defendant No. 2)

3. Chandra Prakash Namdev, R/o Kurmipara, Beside Ram Mandir,
Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, (C.G.)………(Defendant No. 3)
—- Respondents

For Petitioner : Shri Hemant Gupta, Advocate.

For Respondents : None.

Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

Order On Board

21/08/18

1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that
application filed by the petitioner under the provisions of the Guardian and
Wards Act, 1890 (for brevity, ‘Act of 1890’) for having custody of his daughter
has been rejected by the Family Court, Raipur by order dated 18.04.2018
(Annexure – P/1) against which this writ petition has been preferred.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. Since, the application filed by the petitioner under the provisions of Act
of 1890 for having custody of his daughter is appealable under Section
47(C) of the Act of 1890, therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable.

2

4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.
However, the petitioner would be at liberty to prefer an appeal before the
Appellate Authority in accordance with law.

5. Certified copy of the impugned order be returned to the counsel for the
petitioner on furnishing attested photocopy thereof. No order as to cost(s).

SD/-

(Sanjay K. Agrawal)
Judge
Priyanka

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation