Bombay High Court
Shaikh Akhila Rashid vs Shaikh Rashid Umrao on 26 September, 2016
Bench: N.W. Sambre
418.03crvn
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.418 OF 2003
Shaikh Akhila Rashid,
Age: 40 years, Occ: Household,
R/o. 22 Almas Park, Bhingar,
A/p. Dist. Ahmednagar. ..APPLICANT
VERSUS
Shaikh Rashid Umrao,
Age: 46 years, Occ: Service,
R/o. Behind Delhinaka,
A/P. Sangamner, Dist.Ahmednagar. ..RESPONDENT
Mr Gulam Mustafa, Advocate h/f Mr Zia-ul-Mustafa,
Advocate for applicant;
Mr S.K. Shinde, Advocate for respondent
CORAM : N.W. SAMBRE, J.
DATE : 26th SEPTEMBER, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Heard learned respective Counsel.
2. Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
(Court No.4) Ahmednagar, in the back ground of
marriage of the parties to the proceedings on 26 th
September, 1999 and in view of the application
418.03crvn
under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, awarded maintenance of Rs.500/- per
month from the date of application i.e. 23rd
January, 2001, which was upset in Criminal Revision
No. 52 of 2002 by learned 2nd Additional Sessions
Judge, Ahmednagar. Learned Sessions Judge,
Ahmednagar, while upsetting the findings, has
appreciated the evidence of present applicant and
observed that present applicant in her cross
examination has admitted that she insisted the
opponent to come and stay at Ahmednagar, for which
she has filed application for maintenance.
3. With the assistance of respective learned
Counsel, I have read the evidence, particularly
cross examination of the complainant from the
original record and proceedings which is at
Exhibit-12. In her cross examination, particularly
in paragraph-3 from the end, she has categorically
stated that she has made up her mind that she will
not stay with the children of non applicant.
Prima facie observations made by learned Sessions
418.03crvn
Judge are based on misreading of evidence of the
complainant.
4. There is one aspect of the matter which
needs to be considered is, the evidence as is
recorded by the Court below is some what illegible,
which perhaps prompted learned Sessions Court to
form such an opinion.
5. As it is noticed that the evidence of
present applicant was misread by Sessions Court, it
will be appropriate, in my opinion, to allow the
criminal revision application. The order dated 5 th
November, 2003 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions
Judge, Ahmednagar in Criminal Revision No. 52 of
2002 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter
stood restored to the file of learned 2nd
Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar. The parties
hereto agree that they shall appear before the
learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar
on 14th October, 2016. Learned 2nd Additional
Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, in view of pendency of
418.03crvn
the present proceedings for quite long time i.e.
more than ten years, it will be appropriate to
learned Sessions Judge to decide the revision
within a period of six weeks thereafter. Record
and Proceedings be sent back forthwith to the
concerned Court.
6.
The applicant herein shall submit the
typed copies of the deposition of the applicant as
was recorded by learned trial Court.
7. With the above observations, criminal
Revision Application stands allowed in above terms.
(N.W. SAMBRE, J.)
Tupe
