1 2026:CGHC:4810 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1219 of 2025 1 - Smt. Upasna Amit Jaiswal W/o Amit Anant Jaiswal Aged About 34 Years Chopdapara, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Amit Anant Jaiswal S/o Anant Shriramji Jaiswal Aged About 37 Years, R/o Flat No. 4, Harihar Apartment, Giripeth, Nagpur 440010, Office- Principal Global Services Cyber City Tower 16 Magarpatta, Hadapsar, Pune (M.H.) 411028 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vivekanand Samaddar, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Seema Verma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 28.01.2025 1. The challenge in present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to an order dated 31.10.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Ambikapur (C.G.) whereby the right of the petitioner to lead further evidence was closed in Case No. 188/2024. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent is the husband of the petitioner and that the petitioner has filed an application under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking grant of maintenance. The case was instituted in the year 2024 and was posted for recording of evidence. The petitioner examined herself and her cross- examination commenced, however, the same could not be concluded due to HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2026.01.31 12:16:17 +0530 2 paucity of time. It is further submitted that when the matter was listed on 31.10.2025, the petitioner could not remain present owing to illness and consequently, the learned Family Court closed her right to lead further evidence. It is argued that the dispute being matrimonial in nature, a liberal approach ought to have been adopted. Therefore, he prays that the impugned order may be set aside and the petitioner may be granted one opportunity to examine her witnesses. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that seven opportunities were granted to the petitioner to lead evidence, yet no sufficient cause was shown for non-production of witnesses. It is contended that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity and therefore warrants no interference. It is further submitted that the matter before the Family Court is fixed for hearing on 16.02.2026. She submits that the learned Family Court has rightly exercised its jurisdiction in closing the evidence and that the present petition deserves dismissal. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. After perusing the impugned order, it appears that seven opportunities were granted to the petitioner for recording of her evidence. However, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the petitioner has already examined herself and her cross-examination could not be concluded on account of paucity of time. The dispute is between husband and wife and the petitioner is claiming maintenance from the respondent. If adequate opportunity is not afforded to lead proper evidence, it may seriously prejudice her right to receive maintenance. Therefore, in the interest of justice this Court is of the considered opinion that one final opportunity deserves to be granted to the petitioner to lead her entire evidence on a date to be fixed by the learned Family Court. 3 6. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 31.10.2025 is set aside. It is directed that on the next date of hearing or on a date fixed by the learned Family Court, the petitioner shall present all her witnesses for examination. It is further observed that no adjournment shall be sought by either party on the said date. Since the matter is pending since the year 2024 and is at the stage of evidence, it is expected that after recording the evidence, the learned Family Court shall decide the case on its own merits expeditiously and within a reasonable period of time. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is allowed. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge H.Ansari