Patna High CourtCR. REV./404/2017dismissed

Abdul Gaffar v. Shehnaj Khatoon

2023-04-24Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL REVISION No.404 of 2017 Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-1111 Thana- District- ====================================================== Abdul Gaffar S/o late Rafique, Resident of Village-Chak Sikander, P.S.- Biddupur, District- Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

Shehnaj Khatoon, Daughter of Late Abdul Jabbar, Resident of VillageImampatti, P.S.- Chakiya, District-East Champaran ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Md. Helal Ahmad, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 24-04-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present Criminal Revision petition has been filed for setting aside the order and judgment dated 18.07.2016 passed in Maintenance Case No. 167 of 2009 by Principal Judge, Family Court, East Champaran at Motihari by which the order of payment of Maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs.5000/- to the respondent-opposite party as well as payment of expenses of proceeding Rs.12,000/- was directed. The said order was applicable with effect from 15.05.2009.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner admits that O.P. is her legally wedded wife and gave birth two female child. Counsel fairly submits that this criminal revision

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.404 of 2017(6) dt.24-04-2023 2/2 application has been filed with delay and for extension of period of limitation. He has filed an I.A. which is on record. The order is of 18.07.2016 whereas this revision has been preferred on 07.04.2017, as such there is delay of about 9 months in filing the revision application.

In the limitation petition (I.A. No. 1449 of 2017) this Court has seen that in paragraph-8 of the limitation petition the cause for delay has been explained which has not been explained properly in accordance with law, as every delay should be explained day to day. As such this Court not inclined to interfere in this criminal revision and this limitation petition is dismissed as well as the present criminal revision application is also dismissed.

(Dr. Anshuman, J.) ravishankar/- U T