Jharkhand High Court
Nusrat Parveen @ Ayesha Khanam vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 October, 2023
Author: Subhash Chand
Bench: Subhash Chand
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 803 of 2023
Nusrat Parveen @ Ayesha Khanam, wife of Ejaj Khan @ Ajaj Khan, resident
of Flat No.503, Anjan Complex, Jawaharnagar, P.O. and P.S. Azadnagar,
Town-Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand
..... ...... Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2. Ejaj Khan @ Ajaz Khan, son of late Idris Khan, resident of H. No.455,
Munshi Mohalla, Mango, P.O. and P.S. Mango, Town Jamshedpur, District
East Singhbhum, Jharkhand .... .... Opp. Parties
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND
-------
For the Petitioner : Md. Zaid Imam, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, A.P.P.
--------
th
Order No.13 /Dated: 5 October, 2023
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State are present.
2. This Criminal Revision has been preferred against the order dated 16.06.2023 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur in Misc. (Criminal) Application No.08 of 2023, whereby the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur has pleased to allow the application of the opposite party No.2 under Section 126 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure setting aside the order dated 19.09.2022 passed in Original Maintenance Case No. 158 of 2021 and has also directed to pay the amount of Rs.5000/- per month as interim maintenance during pendency of maintenance petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this Criminal Revision has been moved before this Court on behalf of the petitioner-wife aggrieved from two grounds: firstly, the learned Court below has allowed the application under Section 126(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was beyond 90 days and the same was allowed without taking into account the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, secondly, the learned Court below has also held the profession of the opposite party No.2/ husband without any evidence on record.
4. So far as the first grievance of the petitioner on the ground that the application of the opposite party No.2-husband under Section 126(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was allowed without taking into consideration the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which was beyond the -2- prescribed period of 90 days is concerned, the order of the learned Court below does not bear any infirmity reason being in view of the Section 10 (3) of the Family Court Act, 1984, "nothing in sub-section (1) or sub section (2) shall prevent a Family Court from laying down its own procedure with a view to arrive at a settlement in respect of the subject matter of the suit or proceedings or at the truth of the facts alleged by the one party and denied by the other."
5. So far as the second grievance of the petitioner is concerned, the learned Court below has held the profession of the opposite party No.2 while allowing the application under Section 126(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, certainly the same cannot be without pleading and evidence on record. So far as the finding given by the learned Court below in regard to the profession of the opposite party No.2 is concerned, the same shall not affect the merits of the maintenance application, which shall be decided in view of the pleadings of both parties and also the evidence on record, as such, the same finding will not prejudice the right of the petitioner.
6. In view of the above, this Criminal Revision is hereby disposed of at the stage of Admission.
(Subhash Chand, J.) Madhav/-