Disposed¶40

Anamika Dewangan (in Person) v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC23 Feb 2025WPHC/1/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Custody of minor girl child; writ petition (WPHC) by mother in person against husband and police authorities; matrimonial dispute; mediation failed at High Court Mediation & Conciliation Centre; interim supervised visitation order dated 06.02.2025; Guardians and Wards Act remedy; parallel proceedings before Family Court, Raipur; allegations require proper evidence; writ disposed of without orders; Family Court directed to decide expeditiously; High Court of Chhattisgarh, 24.02.2025; Ramesh Sinha CJ; Ravindra Kumar Agrawal J.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief in the writ petition; the petition stands disposed of and the Family Court, Raipur was directed to decide the petitioner's custody case expeditiously. ¶40

Anamika Dewangan (in Person) Vs State of… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief in the writ petition; the petition stands disposed of and the Family Court, Raipur was directed to decide the petitioner's custody case expeditiously.

¶40

Issue for consideration

Dispute between the petitioner (mother) and respondent-8 (father/husband) over custody of their minor girl child, with writ prayers for the child's production from the father's custody and for custody to be given to the petitioner. +2 more

¶29

Court's answer

The learned Family Court, Raipur was directed to decide the petitioner's (custody) case expeditiously.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

Since the petitioner's custody application is already registered before the Family Court, Raipur with notice to the private respondent, two parallel proceedings cannot be run together, and the nature of the allegations requires proper evidence, the Court was not inclined to pass any order in the writ petition, which stands disposed of.

¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court (Bilaspur), WPHC No. 1 of 2025, decided 24.02.2025 per Ramesh Sinha, CJ (bench: Ramesh Sinha, CJ and Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J). A wife appearing in person filed a writ petition against the State police authorities and her husband (respondent No.8) seeking production and custody of her minor daughter from the father's custody and inquiry/directions relating to alleged medication/psychiatric harm to the child. Notice was issued on 23.01.2025; mediation at the High Court Mediation & Conciliation Centre failed; by interim order dated 06.02.2025 the father was directed to leave the child at the petitioner's Raipur house on 09.02.2025 and 16.02.3035 (10 a.m. to 3 p.m.) to protect her schooling. The petitioner had meanwhile moved an application for custody before the competent Court/Family Court at Raipur (remedy under the Guardians and Wards Act noted), which was registered with notice to the husband. Held: as two parallel proceedings cannot run together and the allegations require proper evidence, no order was passed in the writ petition; it stands disposed of, and the Family Court was directed to decide the petitioner's case expeditiously.

¶1

2025:CGHC:9340-DB

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

WPHC No. 1 of 2025

¶5

Anamika Dewangan (In Person) W/o Hemendra Singh Dewangan Aged About 37 Years Niwasi- Panjwani Girls Hostel, Gali No. 3, Shiv Mandir Ke Paas, Katora Talab, Raipur, Tahsil Evam Jila- Raipur, C.G.

¶6

... Petitioner(s)

¶7

versus

¶8

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Sachiv Grih Vibhag (Police), Mantralaya, Mahanadi, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Jila- Raipur, C.G.

¶9

2 - Police Mahanirdeshak Police Mukhyalaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, JilaRaipur, C.G.

¶10

3 - Police Mahanirikshak Raipur Range, Raipur, Jila- Raipur, C.G.

¶11

4 - Police Adhikshak Raipur, Jila- Raipur, C.G.

¶12

5 - Thana Prabhari, Police Station, Rajendra Nagar Raipur, Jila- Raipur, C.G.

¶13

6 - Thana Prabhari, Police Station D.D. Nagar Raipur, Jila- Raipur, C.G.

¶14

7 - Thana Prabhari, Police Station, Mahila Thana Raipur, Jila- Raipur, C.G.

¶15

8 - Hemendra Dewangan S/o Late Meva Lal Dewangan Niwasi- Makan No. 691557, Krishsakha Society, Ring Road Chowk Ke Pas Rohanipuram, JilaRaipur, C.G. ...Respondents

¶16

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶17

For Petitioner	: Ms Anamika Dewangan appears in person
For Respondent/State	: Shri Shashank Thakur, Dy AG
For Private Respondent	: Shri Pragalbh Sharma, Advocate

¶18

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board

¶19

Wphc1 of 2025

¶20

¶21

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 24.02.2025

¶22

Heard Ms Anamika Dewangan, appearing in person for the petitioner. Also heard Shri Shashank Thakur, learned Dy AG, appearing for the respondent/State, and Shri Pragalbh Sharma, learned counsel for the private respondent/husband.

¶23

The petitioner has filed the present petition with the following prayers:-

¶24

“ ek a xh xbZ jkgr&

¶25

1 euuh; U;k;ky; ls fuosnu gS fd uk] ck] iq=h O;kyh firk& gsesUnz nsokaxu fuoklh& 69& 1557 d`".kl[kk lkslk;Vh fjax jksM jk;iqj N]x] dks mlds firk gsesUnz nsokaxu dh vfHkj{kk ls ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds le{k mifLFkr djok;k tk;aA

¶26

2 uk] ck] iq=h O;kyh dk ’kkfjjhd ’kks"k.k dk fpfdRlh; ifj{k.k djok;k tkdj] orZeku esa dkSu lh nokbZ;ksa dk lsou djok;k tk jgk gS mldh tkWp djok;k tkdj uk] ck] iq=h O;kyh dks ;kfpdkdrkZ dh vfHkj{kk esa iznku fd;s tkus dk vkns’k ikfjr fd;s tkus dh d`ik djsaA

¶27

” 3 vU; jkgr tks ekuuh; U;k;ky; mfpr le>sA

¶28

On 23.01.2025, notice was issued to the private respondent-8, who

¶29

is husband of the petitioner, and case was fixed on 05.02.2025. On that day, when the matter was taken up for hearing, respondent-8 was represented through his counsel, and after considering the fact that the dispute relates to the matrimonial dispute between both the petitioner, and respondent-8, and further, there is also a dispute with respect to the custody of minor girl child, this Court has made an effort to get the dispute settled by way of mediation, and sent the parties before the High

¶30

Wphc1 of 2025

¶31

¶32

Court Mediation & Conciliation Centre on that day itself. After counseling and mediation, the parties could not have settled their dispute, and the matter was again came up for its consideration before this Court.

¶33

On 06.02.2025, when the matter was taken up for hearing, this Court has passed the following order:

¶34

“Considering the fact that the petitioner being natural guardian of the child in order to monitor the situation and welfare of the child, we direct that respondent No.8 shall leave the child to the house of the petitioner at Raipur on 09.02.2025 and 16.02.3035 by 10 in the morning, and take back at 3 pm, as she is school going child, and her studies etc will not be disturbed.”

¶35

On the said date, it has also been observed in the order-sheet that in the meanwhile, the petitioner is at liberty to pursue remedy under the Guardians and Wards Act before the competent Court at Raipur to which the petitioner has already moved an application for custody of her daughter.

¶36

Petitioner in person would submit that in compliance of the Court’s order dated 06.02.2025, her daughter had been sent by the private respondent/husband to her house twice but it is further stated that her daughter was under due influence of the private respondent, on account of which the child could not stay at her house comfortably.

¶37

Wphc1 of 2025

¶38

¶39

Learned counsel for respondent-8 would oppose the submissions made by the learned petitioner in person, and submitted that as per the order passed by this Court, he left the child with the petitioner, and complied with the order passed by this Court.

¶40

Considering the nature of dispute, and submissions made by either parties, and further considering that the dispute between the petitioner and the private respondent is with respect to the custody of their minor child, and an application has already been filed by the petitioner before the learned Family Court, Raipur, which has been registered there, and notice has been issued to the private respondent, and two parallel proceedings cannot be run together, the nature of allegation requires proper evidence and therefore, we are not inclined to pass any order in the present petition, and the same stands disposed of. However, learned Family Court is directed to decide the case of petitioner expeditiously.

¶41

Sd/-	Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)	(Ramesh Sinha)
Judge	Chief Justice

¶42

padma

Anamika Dewangan (in Person) v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anamika Dewangan (in Person) v. State of Chhattisgarh

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

Smriti Grih Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Sanstha Office Vs Dinesh Kumar Dubey

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Gaurav Swarnkar

Manoj Kumar Dansena Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Arjun @ Payku Kunjam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kishan Das @ Radhe Das Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Devlal @ Devalal Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh