SUVARNA BARIK vs DIVAKAR BARIK Advocate - Naveen Yadav, BANHIMAN ROY — FA(MAT)/72/2026

Next hearing: : -.

Next hearing —

CNR: CGHC010073232026

Filing Number

FA(MAT)/4190/2026

Filing Date

18-Feb-2026

Registration No

FA(MAT)/72/2026

Registration Date

19-Feb-2026

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

OTHER DIVORCE MATTERS. ( 1502 )

Judicial Branch

Civil Section

Last updated 05-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SUVARNA BARIK

    Adv. AWADH TRIPATHI,ANAND BAJAJ,ANAND BAJAJ, ,INDIRA TRIPATHI,Vivek kumar tripathi,Shubham Tripathi,Shubham Tripathi,SHIKHAR AGNIHOTRI,SHIKHAR AGNIHOTRI,SHIKHAR AGNIHOTRI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.DIVAKAR BARIK Advocate - Naveen Yadav, BANHIMAN ROY

Case History

  1. —

    Next hearingPending

  2. 08-May-2026

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

    Case Summary: FA(MAT) No. 72/2026 In this family appeal before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur between Suvarna Barik (appellant) and Divakar Barik (respondent), the court granted the appellant's request for an adjournment. The case was adjourned for six weeks to allow the appellant's counsel to cure procedural defects identified by the Registry. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 23-Feb-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal,Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar VermaView PDF

  4. 23-Feb-2026

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal , Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma

  5. 18-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. FA(MAT)/72/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: FA(MAT) No. 72/2026 In this family appeal before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur between Suvarna Barik (appellant) and Divakar Barik (respondent), the court granted the appellant's request for an adjournment. The case was adjourned for six weeks to allow the appellant's counsel to cure procedural defects identified by the Registry. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case