Patna High CourtCR. REV./119/2018dismissed

Garibnath Singh v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2019-05-09Mr. Justice Birendra Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL REVISION No.119 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-1111 Thana- District- ====================================================== Garibnath Singh, S/o Late Yugeshwar Singh, R/o Village Ghatro, P.S. Kartaha, Lalganj, District - Vaishali.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar 2.

Jagtarn Devi, D/o Punit Mahto, R/o Barbatta Near N.H. 19 towards South, P.S. - Sonepur, District - Saran.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shailendra Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Ahtash Ali Khan, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 09-05-2019 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This criminal revision has been preferred, under Section 19(iv) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, against the order dated 09.11.2017 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Saran at Chapra in Maintenance Case No. 97 of 2012. Opposite party no. 2 Jagtaran Devi, the wife of this petitioner, had brought Maintenance Case No. 97 of 2012, a petition, under Section 125 Cr.P.C, before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Saran at Chapra. The petitioner appeared and filed written objection. Thereafter, the petitioner could not appear for cross-examination of first witness produced by the wife of the petitioner. Thereafter for further cross-examination, prayer of the petitioner was allowed on payment of cost of Rs.200/- (rupees two hundred). In the meantime, another

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.119 of 2018(2) dt.09-05-2019 2/2 witness appeared and he was examined in chief. Thereupon, the petitioner filed a petition under Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for review of order dated 10.07.2017 and to allow the opposite party to crossexamine the witnesses. The said petition has been allowed on payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- (one thousand) and ex parte order was recalled. The cost was to be paid to the wife (P.W. 1), who was also directed to remain present for cross-examination. After hearing the parties, I do not find any infirmity with the order including order of cost which is not unreasonable one. Hence, this criminal revision is devoid of any merit. Accordingly, it stands dismissed.

(Birendra Kumar, J) Kundan/- U T