1 2025:CGHC:1674 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 885 of 2021 1 - Smt. Pooja Rajak W/o Shri Virendra Kumar Dhobi, Aged About 30 Years R/o Kapan (Railway Station), Police Station Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.). Present Address - Imli Bhatha, Indira Vihar, Kanhaiya City Colony, House No. 48/49, Police Station Sarkanda, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Viyan, S/o Virendra Kumar Aged About 5 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Pooja Rajak, R/o Kapan (Railway Station), Police Station Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.). Present Address - Imli Bhatha, Indira Vihar, Kanhaiya City Colony, House No. 48/49, Police Station Sarkanda, District – Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3 - Viyom, Aged About 1 Month S/o Virendra Kumar Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Pooja Rajak, R/o Kapan (Railway Station), Police Station Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.). Present Address - Imli Bhatha, Indira Vihar, Kanhaiya City Colony, House No. 48/49, Police Station Sarkanda, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners versus Virendra Kumar Dhobi (Rajak) S/o Shri Bishau Ram Rajak, Aged About 36 Years R/o Kapan (Railway Station), Police Station Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent (Cause title, as taken from CIS) For Petitioners : None For Respondent : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2025.01.10 18:42:08 +0530 2 (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Order on Board 10/01/2025 1. Despite repeated calls, no one appeared for the petitioners. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that, petitioner No.1 and respondent are wife & husband and petitioners No.2 & 3 are their children. He would further submit that earlier, due to some dispute, wife had lodged FIR under Section 498 A of IPC & maintenance application before the trial Court against the respondent. Subsequently, settlement was arrived at between them, therefore, CRMP No.2728/2019 filed by respondent-husband has been disposed of by learned Division Bench. He further submitted that the parties are residing together peacefully. 3. Having considered contention made by learned counsel for the respondent and further considering the fact that, despite repeated calls, no one is appearing on behalf of the applicants, this petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Rukhsar