Shilpa Hora Vs Manavchandra Singh

1 - Manavchandra Singh S/o Rameshchandra Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o House No. L.I.G.-7, Near Satyam Bekary, Vaishali Nagar, P.S. - Vaishali Nagar, Tehsil - Bhilai, District - Durg (C.G.).

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

For Appellant : Ms. Priyanka Bajpai, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Manish Upadhyay, Advocate.

¶12

DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

¶13

Order on Board

¶14

(17.12.2025)

¶15

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

¶16

This appeal, under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act, 1984, read with Section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, has been preferred by the appellant against the

¶17

2

¶18

order dated 26.03.2025, passed by the learned Third Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, DistrictDurg (C.G.), in MJC No. 14/2024, by which the learned trial Court rejected the application for granting interim custody holding that the question of custody of the minor child would be decided only after recording and appreciating the evidence of the parties.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Family Court has wrongly rejected the appellant’s application for interim custody of the minor son, without considering the paramount interest and welfare of the minor child, therefore, the impugned order be set aside and custody of the child be handed over to the appellant/wife.

¶20

Learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order and contends that the Court cannot decide the question of handing over the custody of the minor child without recording the evidence of the parties, therefore, the impugned order needs no interference.

¶21

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record with utmost circumspection.

¶22

The petitioner has sought interim custody of her minor son until the case is resolved. The learned trial Court held that since both the parties have leveled allegations and counter allegations against each other which are the subject of the

¶23

3

¶24

evidence, therefore, the question of custody will be resolved after appreciating the evidence on merits.

¶25

Having considered the submission made by learned counsel for the parties and after going through material on record, we are not inclined to interfere with order passed by the learned trial Court as the matter is required to be decided on merits after recording and appreciating the evidence of both the parties.

¶26

Accordingly, the appeal has no merits and is dismissed . However, the concered Court is directed to decide the main case within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. Now, the parties shall appear before the trial Court on 15.01.2026.

¶27

Let a certified copy of this order along with the original record be transmitted forthwith to the trial Court concerned for information and necessary action, if any.

¶28

Sd/Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Judge

¶29

Sourabh P.

Shilpa Hora v. Manavchandra Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shilpa Hora v. Manavchandra Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandip Kumar Painkra Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Neeraj Bhatt @ Niru Vs Smt. Ankita Sharma

Smt. Poonam Gaur (Bais) Vs Jitendra Singh Gaur

Rajesh Ram Lohar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Devashish Naik Vs Smt. Monika @ Pinki Naik

Ravikant Vs Smt. Kaleshwari