SHOBHA SINGH vs SMT. SHANTI Advocate - Amit Kumar Sahu, ,RAJKUMAR PALI,PRATIBHA SAHU — FA(MAT)/36/2023

Next hearing: : -.

Next hearing —

CNR: CGHC010030352023

Filing Number

FA(MAT)/1820/2023

Filing Date

20-Jan-2023

Registration No

FA(MAT)/36/2023

Registration Date

07-Feb-2023

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu , Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu , Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

Bench Type

Division Bench

Category

FAMILY LAW MATTERS ( 15 )

Sub-Category

MINORITY & GUARDIANSHIP MATTERS. ( 1506 )

Judicial Branch

Civil Section

Last updated 05-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SHOBHA SINGH

    Adv. SHAKTI RAJ SINHA,Nishi Kant Sinha,Nishi Kant Sinha, ,Nishi Kant Sinha

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SMT. SHANTI Advocate - Amit Kumar Sahu, ,RAJKUMAR PALI,PRATIBHA SAHU

  2. 2.Kumari Nishi

Case History

  1. —

    Next hearingPending

  2. 07-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu,Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh RajputView PDF

    Case Summary: On 07/05/2026, the High Court of Chhattisgarh adjourned the matter and directed it be listed before a different bench. This was because one of the judges (Parth Prateem Sahu, J.) had a conflict of interest, as the counsel representing the respondent was an exception to him. The appellant was represented; respondent was absent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 19-Dec-2024

    Motion Hearing Matters

    Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey , Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru

  4. 29-Nov-2024

    Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey,Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta GuruView PDF

  5. 09-Feb-2023

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri,Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar ChandravanshiView PDF

  6. 09-Feb-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 20-Jan-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. FA(MAT)/36/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: On 07/05/2026, the High Court of Chhattisgarh adjourned the matter and directed it be listed before a different bench. This was because one of the judges (Parth Prateem Sahu, J.) had a conflict of interest, as the counsel representing the respondent was an exception to him. The appellant was represented; respondent was absent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case