1 2025:CGHC:7890 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 151 of 2025  Satyajeet Kurre S/o Late Shri Anand Ram Kurre Aged About 33 Years R/o Opposite Shri Gajanand Sai Mandir Budhwari, Ward No.21, Nagar Nigam Korba, District Korba (C.G.) (Applicant) ... Petitioner(s) versus  Smt. Kameshwari Kurre D/o Late Pardeshi Barman Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Kotra, Police Station Kotra Road, Tahsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) C/o Block Medical Officer, Primary Health Center, Turekela, Via/tahsil/ Police Station Kharsia, District Raigarh (C.G.) (Non Applicant) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 14. 02.2025 1. The petitioner/husband has challenged the order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raigarh in Civil Suit No. 189-A/2023 dated 30.07.2024, whereby an application moved under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for the custody of children has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/husband would submit that in a proceeding under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short “Act, 1955”) an application under Section 26 of the Act, 1955 was moved for the custody of children and that has been rejected by the learned Family Court on the ground that another proceeding under the provisions of SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.02.18 10:51:25 +0530 2 the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 is pending consideration before the competent Court. He would further submit that the learned Family Court has observed that the right of the petitioner with regard to custody would be decided in the pending proceeding. He would also submit that the pending proceeding under Section 10 of the Act, 1955 has already been concluded; therefore, the observation is erroneous. 3. Heard. 4. Taking into consideration the fact that a separate proceeding for the custody of children under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 is pending consideration before the competent Court and the petitioner moved an application under Section 26 of the Act, 1955 in a proceeding pending under Section 10 of the Act, 1955. 5. The learned Court below rejected the application on two grounds :- (1) The issue of custody would be decided by the competent Court in the original proceeding and; (2) A separate proceeding under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 is pending consideration. 6. Taking into consideration the reasons assigned by the learned Court below, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order dated 30.07.2024. Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).S Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant