1 2026:CGHC:18817-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 228 of 2026 Rajkumar Pandey S/o Late Pashupatinath Pandey Aged About 68 Years R/o Giri Singar 1367, Kurud Road, Saket Nagar Kohka, Bhilai, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant. versus Smt. Kanti Pandey W/o Rajkumar Pandey Aged About 50 Years (Now 55 Years) R/o Giri Singar 1367, Kurud Road, Saket Nagar Kohka, Bhilai, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Shri Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Advocate. Division Bench Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board (24/04/2026) Per Rajani Dubey, J. 1. The present MCC has been filed by the applicant seeking modification (correction of clerical error) in order dated 21.11.2025 passed by this Court in FA (MAT) No.107 of 2020 (Rajkumar Pandey vs. Smt. Kanti Pandey). 2. The applicant had filed FA (MAT) No. 107 of 2020 before this Court being aggrieved by the judgment dated 04.02.2020 passed by the 3rd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.73-A of 2014, whereby the Family Court had dismissed the application for divorce filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The applicant had prayed that the AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.04.24 17:29:12 +0530 2 appeal may be allowed and judgment and decree dated 04.02.2020 may kindly be quashed/set aside and pass a decree of divorce in favour of the applicant. After giving proper opportunity of hearing and after meticulous scrutiny of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court allowed the prayer of the applicant and gave its order dated 21.11.2025, relevant portion i.e. paragraphs No.14 and 15 reads as under: 14. In light of the foregoing and the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court, considering the long separation, the mutual allegations, and the total breakdown of the marriage, it would be just and proper to dissolve the marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. So far as the prayer for permanent alimony and maintenance is concerned, this Court finds no sufficient ground to entertain or grant the same in the facts and circumstances of the case. 15. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that though this Court had granted relief for decree of divorce in favour of the appellant/applicant, however, due to inadvertence instead of words “partly allowed”, the word “dismissed” has been mentioned in the paragraph No.15. Hence, he prays that the word ‘dismissed’ be replaced with words ‘partly allowed’ in paragraph No.15. 4. For the reasons stated in the MCC application, and upon a careful perusal of the record as well as the order dated 21.11.2025 passed by this Court in FA (MAT) No.107 of 2020, it is apparent that in paragraph 15 of the said order, the expression “dismissed” has been inadvertently mentioned due to a clerical and typographical error, whereas the same ought to have been “partly allowed”. 5. Accordingly, the MCC application is allowed, and the order dated 21.11.2025 is 3 modified to the extent that the expression “dismissed” appearing in the paragraph 15 shall stand replaced by “partly allowed”. 6. The order dated 21.11.2025 passed in FA (MAT) No.107 of 2020 (Rajkumar Pandey vs. Smt. Kanti Pandey) shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent only, and the aforesaid order shall otherwise remain intact. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad ) Judge Judge Avinash