Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 43334 (CHH)

SUNISH KUMAR BANJARE v. SMT. ANITA BANJARE

FA(MAT)/389/2024 · 2025-08-11

Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Smt Rajani Dubey

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:40359-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA(MAT) No. 389 of 2024 Sunish Kumar Banjare S/o Shri Tirith Ram Banjare Aged About 26 Years Caste Satnami, R/o Village Sanjay Nagar, Birra, Police Station Birr, Tahsil Bamhnidih, District- Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) ... Appellant versus Smt. Anita Banjare W/o Shri Sunish Banjare Aged About 26 Years Caste Satnami, R/o Village Birra, Presently Resided At Village Kikirda, Police Station Birra, Tahsil Bamhnidih, District Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : None For Respondent : Mr. B. Prabhakar Rao, Advocate Hon'ble Smt. Rajani Dubey, Judge Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board Per Rajani Dubey, J. 12.08.2025 1 None appears nor is any representation made on behalf of the appellant to press this appeal when the case is called out even in two rounds. 2 Mr. B. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for respondent, is present. YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.08.12 18:34:32 +0530 2 3 The present appeal has been filed by the appellant with the following prayer:- “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court, may kindly be pleased to allow this appeal and set- aside the Judgement and decree, dated 07.10.2024 passed by the learned principle judge, family court, Raipur, District: Raipur (C.G.). in C.S.No. 362A/2022, (Annexure A/1), and passed the decree of divorce, by allowing the application under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, filed by the appellant / applicant, in the interest of justice.” 4 Today, when the case is called, learned counsel for the appellant is not present nor any representation made on his behalf to press this appeal on repeated calls and it appears that the appellant has lost interest in pursuing the matter, as such we have left with no other option but to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. 5 Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Judge Yogesh