PAWAN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs. SHAILY SRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Nilish Anand, the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) By means of the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking following main reliefs:-

(3.) The petitioner has impleaded the learned Additional Principal Judge V, Family Court, Lucknow as an opposite party to the petition, whereas as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Savitri Devi Vs. District Judge, Gorakhpur; (1999) 2 SCC 577 and in Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji v. State of Gujrat, (2015) 9 SCC 1, the Civil Courts ought not to be impleaded as opposite parties to the petitions filed in the High Courts. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to strike out the name of learned Additional Principal Judge V, Family Court, Lucknow, from the array of opposite parties forthwith.