IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Revision No.1058 of 2009

With

Interlocutory Application No. 1360 of 2009

======================================================

Md.Azhar Alam @ Azhar Alam @ Azhar Hussain, son of Md. Mahboob

Alam, resident of Mohalla Panchmahalla Jehanabad, P.S. and District

Jehanabad .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. Zahda Khatoon, wife of Md.Azhar Alam @ Azhar Alam @ Azhar

Hussain and daughter of Md. Isha

2. Md. Shahbaz, minor son of Md. Azhar Alam @ Azhar Alam under the

guardianship of his mother Zahda Khatoon,

Both are residents of Mohalla Panchmahalla Jehanabad, P.S. and

District Jehanabad, presently, residing at Mohalla Alamganj, P.S.

Laheri, District Nalanda .... .... Opposite party/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abdul Wadood, Advocate

For the Opposite party/s : None

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA

ORAL ORDER

7 17-12-2012

The present revision application is barred by

limitation. Interlocutory Application No. 1360 of 2009 has been

filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking condonation of delay of 67

days, occurred in filing the main Cr. Revision application.

For the reasons disclosed in this interlocutory

application, the delay of 67 days in filing the main Cr. Revision

application is condoned.

Interlocutory application stands disposed of.

Re. Cr. Revision No. 1058 of 2009

By the impugned judgment and order dated

27.1.2009, passed in Maintenance Case No. 30 (M) of 2002 by the

learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nalanda at Biharsharif, the

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1058 of 2009 (7) dt.17-12-2012

2 / 3

2

claim of maintenance made on behalf of the opposite parties in

terms of Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been allowed and the petitioner

has been directed to pay both of them maintenance of a paltry sum

at the rate of Rs. 750/- per month each from the date of filing of

the case i.e. 1.7.2002.

In the aforesaid Maintenance case filed on behalf of

the opposite parties, the claimants had produced three witnesses in

support of their claim for maintenance. The petitioner was

impleaded as opposite party in the aforesaid Maintenance case and

he also produced two witnesses in support of his case resisting the

prayer of maintenance made on behalf of the opposite parties. In

the aforesaid Maintenance case, the petitioner admitted that

opposite party no.1 is his legally wedded wife and opposite party

no.2 is the minor son, born out of the wedlock of the petitioner and

opposite party no.1. However, he resisted the claim of

maintenance on other grounds but that was not accepted by the

learned Family Court, in view of materials available on the record

and finally by the impugned judgment and order claim of

maintenance of the opposite parties has been allowed.

This matter was heard in part at length on 5.12.2012.

However, on the request of learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the petitioner, the matter was adjourned and it was ordered to be

listed today for further hearing with a clear stipulation that on that

date no further adjournment shall be granted. However, when the

matter was called out today, none is present on behalf of the

petitioner to advance any further submissions.

Since the matter was already heard on 5.12.2012 and

after having gone through the impugned judgment and order

passed by the learned Family Court, and on consideration of other

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1058 of 2009 (7) dt.17-12-2012

3 / 3

3

materials available on the record, this Court does not find any

legal infirmity or procedural irregularity warranting any

interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction

with the impugned judgment passed by