KANCHAN DEVI RAJEEV CHARGOTRA vs AMIT SHARMA — CM(M)/85/2026
Case under Article 227-Section 104 Section 1A. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 06th May 2026.
CNR: JKHC020025402026
Next Hearing
06th May 2026
Filing Number
CM(M)/1902/2026
Filing Date
05-05-2026
Registration No
CM(M)/85/2026
Registration Date
05-05-2026
Judge
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI
Coram
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
SB PETITIONS U/S 104 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR – CM(M) ( 129 )
Sub-Category
AGAINST AN INTERIM ORDER ( 1 )
Judicial Branch
CIVIL CASES (C)
Decision Date
06th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Disposed Off
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
KANCHAN DEVI RAJEEV CHARGOTRA
Respondent(s)
AMIT SHARMA
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI
FOR ADMISSION Before Notice
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-05-2026 | FOR ADMISSION Before Notice |
Orders
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir set aside the lower court's procedural approach in a divorce case, holding that the Principal District Judge, Samba erred by treating the matrimonial petition as routine civil litigation without attempting reconciliation or mediation as mandated under Section 23(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Order 32-A of the CPC. The court remanded the case, directing the trial court to first undertake reconciliation/mediation efforts before proceeding to adjudication on merits, emphasizing that such initiatives must occur at the inception of matrimonial proceedings rather than after pleadings are exchanged. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir set aside the lower court's procedural approach in a divorce case, holding that the Principal District Judge, Samba erred by treating the matrimonial petition as routine civil litigation without attempting reconciliation or mediation as mandated under Section 23(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Order 32-A of the CPC. The court remanded the case, directing the trial court to first undertake reconciliation/mediation efforts before proceeding to adjudication on merits, emphasizing that such initiatives must occur at the inception of matrimonial proceedings rather than after pleadings are exchanged. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts