1 2025:CGHC:23003 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 464 of 2025 1. Shomi Patel W/o Bhishm Kumar Patel Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Jagatpur Kumhar Para Dhimarapur Road, Raigarh Tehsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Bhishm Kumar Patel S/o Shri Dirpal Singh Patel Aged About 33 Years Profession - Naib Tehsildar, Resident Of Village - Sangitarai, Raigarh Tehsil And District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 11.06.2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Section 227 of Constitution of India assailing the order dated 20.03.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the learned Family Court, Raigarh (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 172-A/2024 by which the application filed under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC has been rejected. 2. Brief facts reflected from the record are that the respondent MANISH YADAV Digitally signed by MANISH YADAV Date: 2025.07.16 12:08:37 +0530 2 husband has filed a civil suit under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the learned Family Court Raigarh (C.G.) registered as Civil Suit No. 172-A/2024 to declare the court marriage solemnized between the parties on 08.04.2019 as null and void. In the course of proceeding before the Family Court the petitioner wife moved an application under Order 6 Rules 17 of CPC on 19.12.2024 contending that the suit is not maintainable on the principle of res judicata as the husband has already filed a suit before the learned Family Court Baikunthpur which has been registered Civil Suit No. 1-A/2024 and same has been dismissed as withdrawn on 27.04.2024. It has also been contended that the marriage solemnized between the parties is governed by Special Marriage Act, 1954 and cannot be dissolved as per Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The amendment application was allowed by the learned family Court on 27.01.2025. Thereafter she moved an application for framing additional issues on this subsequent amendment. The learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 20.03.2025 has rejected the same by recording its finding that the petitioner has also filed a civil Suit No. 166-A/2024 under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 contending that both the parties are Hindu and they have solemnized the court marriage on 08.04.2019 and thereafter, with the consent of the family members of both the family, they have solemnized the marriage as per Hindu rights and rituals on 16.04.2020. It has also recorded its finding that the petitioner herself claiming to be Hindu and contending that her marriage was solemnized as per the Hindu rights and rituals, therefore, once the facts are admitted by the 3 petitioner then framing of issues will be against the provision of law and accordingly, it has rejected the same. Being aggrieved with order the petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learned trial Court has committed illegality in dismissing the application as it is incumbent upon the trial Court to frame the issues as per pleadings of the parties and denial of facts by other parties as it is a disputed fact, as such, it has been prayed for quashing of the impugned order dated 20.03.2025 and would pray for allowing the writ petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record with utmost satisfaction. 5. From record and undisputed facts, it is quite vivid that the parties are Hindus as contended by the petitioner while filing an application filed under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court Raigarh itself, therefore, their marriage has to be governed under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 only and not by the Special Marriage Act, 1954. 6. The trial Court has already framed the issues whether the petitioner has misbehaved with cruelty with the respondent and also framed issue whether after one year of passing of decree of restitution of conjugal rights on 26.07.2023 in favour of the respondent conjugal rights of both the parties have not been restored. Since the material issues to decide the lis between the parties have already been framed, as such, the learned Family 4 Court has not committed any illegality in rejecting the application for framing of additional issues vide impugned order dated 20.03.2025. 7. The writ petition sans merit liable to be dismissed, and accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Manish