1 2026:CGHC:4581 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 103 of 2026 1 - Smt. Anjeshwari Banjare W/o Awadh Kumar Banjare Aged About 35 Years R/o Quarter No. 12/h, Street No. 04 Sector 04 Bhilai, Tahsil And District - Durg Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Awadh Kumar Banjare S/o Bhagwani Banjare Aged About 37 Years R/o Quarter No. 4/a, Street No. 23 Sector 11, Zone 01 Khursipar, Bhilai P.S. Khursipar, Bhilai Tahsil And District - Durg Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Jha, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 28/01/2026 Heard on admission. 2. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed assailing the legality, correctness and judicial propriety of the impugned order dated 13.08.2025 passed by the learned 1st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, CG in Case No. 747/2022 by which the application of the petitioner under Order 26 Rule 9 of the CPC was rejected. PAWAN KUMAR Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR Date: 2026.01.29 15:46:40 +0530 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent is the husband of the petitioner, who has filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1955”) seeking dissolution of marriage between the parties. He further submits that the evidence of the parties is presently being recorded. It is contended that during the pendency of the said divorce proceedings, the respondent has contacted a second marriage and in support thereof, a marriage invitation card has been placed on record. However, during cross- examination, the respondent has denied having solemnized second marriage. In order to ascertain whether the respondent has in fact remarried, the petitioner filed an application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC, inter alia, praying for appointment of Commissioner to collect information regarding the alleged second marriage of the respondent. The said application has been illegally rejected by the impugned order. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 5. It appears that an application for dissolution of marriage was filed by the respondent. From perusal of record and submission made it appears that an allegation has been made by the petitioner that respondent / husband has married before the divorce has taken place. It appears that some documents with regard to marriage invitation card has also placed on record. Perusal of the application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC clearly indicates that the petitioner is seeking for appointment of commissioner to collect the information with regard to the second marriage of the respondent. The prayer made in the application is absolutely vague. By virtue of this application, the petitioner is intending to collect the evidence through the Court. If the petitioner intends to prove the factum of the second marriage of the respondent, it could have been proved by leading evidence in this regard. The learned Family Court while deciding the application has observed that the marriage invitation card is placed on 3 record and the fact which the petitioner wanted to prove by way of commission is already on record. Thus the application was rejected. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Pawan