Patna High CourtCR. REV./399/2022dismissed

Md Kasim v. Aashiyana Khatoon

2022-08-24Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL REVISION No.399 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-0 Thana- District- Begusarai ====================================================== MD KASIM Son of Md. Masum Resident of Village - Narullahpur, P.s.- Khodawandpur, Distt.- Begusarai.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

Aashiyana Khatoon W/o Md. Kasim Resident of Village - Narullahpur, P.s.- Khodawandpur, Distt.- Begusarai at Present Aashiyana Khatoon , D/o Md. Hakeem, R/o Village - Dharmpur, P.s.- Gadhpura, Distt.- Begusarai. ... ... Respondent ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Braj Bhushan Poddar, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr.akhileshwar Dayal, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 24-08-2022 I.A. No. 01 of 2022 This application has been filed for condonation of delay of three years ten days in filing of the present revision application. The impugned order was passed on 28.03.2019 and according to the petitioner the limitation expired on 26.06.2019. The present revision application has been filed on 08.06.2022. By the impugned order the petitioner has been directed to pay Rs. 3000/- per month as interim maintenance to his wife every month. In the interlocutory application the petitioner contends that he wants to pay Rs. 3000/- per month to his wife but the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Begusarai has directed vide order dated 03.05.2022 to fill up PR Bond for Rs. 3 Lakhs and ordered to deposit Rs. 60,000/- in a

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.399 of 2022(3) dt.24-08-2022 2/2 week, hence the present revision application has been filed. This Court finds that the petitioner is not aggrieved by the order dated 28.03.2019, he seems to be aggrieved by the order dated 03.05.2022 directing him to fill up PR Bond of Rs. 3 Lakhs and the order to deposit Rs. 60,000/- in a week. The only ground for filing of the revision application is said to be the order directing him to fill up the PR Bond and to deposit Rs. 60,000/-. This cannot be said to be the plausible ground to allow the petitioner to file this revision application at the belated stage of more than three years. He himself says that he wants to pay Rs. 3000/- per month as per the said order.

There being no plausible ground for condonation of delay in filing of the revision application, this Court finds no reason to allow the limitation petition. It is dismissed, accordingly. As a result thereof, this revision application also fails.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.) Rajeev/- U T Note: The ordersheet duly signed has been attached with the record. However, in view of the present arrangements, during Pandemic period all concerned shall act on the basis of the copy of the order uploaded on the High Court website under the heading 'Judicial Orders Passed During The Pandemic Period'.