PRITI SHRIVASTAVA vs VINAY KUMAR SHRIVASTAV Advocate - CHANDRESH SHRIVASTAVA, ,KABEER KALWANI,KABEER KALWANI,SASHWAT GUPTA — FA(MAT)/314/2023

Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 15th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010381232023

Filing Number

FA(MAT)/22030/2023

Filing Date

10-Nov-2023

Registration No

FA(MAT)/314/2023

Registration Date

24-Nov-2023

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal , Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal , 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

Decision Date

15-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 23-May-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.PRITI SHRIVASTAVA

    Adv. Tarendra Kumar Jha,AAMIR KHAN,AAMIR KHAN, ,Bhaskar Jha,Narayan Prasad Thakur,TAPAN KUMAR CHANDRA,AAMIR KHAN

  2. 2.Anupama Singh

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.VINAY KUMAR SHRIVASTAV Advocate - CHANDRESH SHRIVASTAVA, ,KABEER KALWANI,KABEER KALWANI,SASHWAT GUPTA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal,Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh RajputView PDF

    Summary: The High Court of Chhattisgarh held that Family Courts lack jurisdiction to entertain guardianship applications for persons with disabilities; such matters fall exclusively under the National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999 (the "Act of 1999"). The court applied the principle "generalia specialibus non derogant" (special law overrides general law) to determine that the Act of 1999, being special legislation enacted after the Code of Civil Procedure, prevails over general CPC provisions, requiring applicants to approach the local-level committees constituted under the Act of 1999 for guardianship appointments. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 24-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal,Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh RajputView PDF

  4. 23-Mar-2026

    Motion Hearing Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal , Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

  5. 17-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal,Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh RajputView PDF

  6. 17-Mar-2026

    Motion Hearing Matters

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice , Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

  7. 11-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice,Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar AgrawalView PDF

  8. 11-Mar-2026

    Motion Hearing Matters

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

  9. 10-Mar-2026

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

  10. 09-Mar-2026

    Orders on IAs

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

  11. 03-Mar-2026

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

  12. 06-Jan-2025

    Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey,Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar VyasView PDF

  13. 12-Nov-2024

    Motion Hearing Matters ( Dormant Case )

    Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey , Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

  14. 14-Aug-2024

    Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey,Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore PrasadView PDF

  15. 07-Feb-2024

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri,Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan AgrawalView PDF

  16. 04-Dec-2023

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri,Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar TiwariView PDF

  17. 04-Dec-2023

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal , Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Agrawal

  18. 28-Nov-2023

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal,Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay AgrawalView PDF

  19. 28-Nov-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  20. 10-Nov-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. FA(MAT)/314/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The High Court of Chhattisgarh held that Family Courts lack jurisdiction to entertain guardianship applications for persons with disabilities; such matters fall exclusively under the National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999 (the "Act of 1999"). The court applied the principle "generalia specialibus non derogant" (special law overrides general law) to determine that the Act of 1999, being special legislation enacted after the Code of Civil Procedure, prevails over general CPC provisions, requiring applicants to approach the local-level committees constituted under the Act of 1999 for guardianship appointments. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case