1 2025:CGHC:55654 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 959 of 2025 Saurabh Kumar Dubey S/o Shri Ashok Kumar Dubey Aged About 30 Years R/o Rajeev Nagar, Near Keju Rice Mill, Durg, Tehsil And Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus Smt. Nisha Sharma W/o Saurabh Kumar Dubey Aged About 28 Years D/o Late Shri Janardhan Prasad Sharma, R/o Arjuni Bazar Chowk, Village Arjuni, P.S. Bhatapara, (Village), Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Karan Kumar Baharani, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 14/11/2025 1. This Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitutio of India has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 30.8.2025, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court , Raipur, Chhattisgarh in Case No. 421 of 2025 whereby the petitioner’s application filed under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code (in short”CPC”) for appointment of commission for recording of the cross- examination of the petitioner was rejected. 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner/husband filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court, Durg. He also submits that this Court in TPC No. 16 of 2025 vide order dated 20.02.2025, transferred the said suit to the Family Court, Raipur. He submits that the affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC has already been filed by the petitioner. He has undergone a Kidney transplant and at present, he is confined to a wheelchair. An effort of cross-examine of the petitioner through video conferencing was failed on account of the technical glitches and dispute amongst the parties. He submits that the petitioner is not in a position to appear before the Family Court, Raipur for his cross-examination. Therefore, an application for appointment of a commission under order 26 Rule 9 read with 151 of CPC was filed. He further submits that the impugned order may be set aside and a commission may be appointed for cross-examining the petitioner and he is ready and willing to get cross-examine on any date which may be fixed by this Court or by the learned Family Court. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent/wife while opposing the submission made on behalf of counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner has undergone a kidney transplant in the year 2024 and after laps of about two years, it cannot be said that he is not in a position to come to District Court, Raipur for his cross-examination. Therefore, the learned Family Court has rightly appreciated facts & circumstances of the case and rejected the application therefore, there is no merit in this writ petition and liable to 3 be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. The records indicate that initially the petitioner filed a suit for divorce before the Family Court, Durg which subsequently, transferred to the Family Court, Raipur. There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner has undergone a kidney transplant and according to learned counsel for the petitioner her mother has donated the kidney to the petitioner. Some medical documents have been appended to demonstrate ailment of the petitioner. The learned Family Court held that the respondent has made an objection and though both the parties are not ready for passing the order for appointment of commission, therefore, the application was rejected. It has been further observed that the evidence of the petitioner can be recorded after interval of 40-45 mins. However, the facts remains that the petitioner has undergone major surgery of kidney and his kidney has also been transplanted, therefore, ends of justice would be served, if one opportunity is granted to the petitioner for cross-examination by issuance of commission. 6. In view of foregoing discussion, the impugned order deserves to be and is hereby set aside and it is directed that the learned Family Court would appoint a Commissioner for a cross- examination of the petitioner and also fix a date and on that day, the respondent alongwith her counsel and the commissioner would get 4 the cross-examination of the petitioner. It is also directed that entire expenses of this exercise would be borne by the petitioner. It is observed that while deciding the TPC, this Court directed that the proceeding before the trial Court would be concluded within a period of four months. 7. The learned Family Court, Raipur would keep in mind the earlier order passed by this Court while granting the date for cross- examination of the petitioner on commission. 8. With the aforesaid observation/direction, this writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput ) Judge Ami AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2025.11.21 18:13:13 +0530