Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.448 of 2007 ====================================================== Mazharul Bari son of Abdul Bari, resident of village- Kharra, PS and District Madhubani .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Rubi Begum daughter of Majahir alias Majahir Hussain 3. Baby daughter of Mazharul Hari (wrongly stated the daughter of petitioner) and under the guardianship of mother (opposite party no.2) Sl. no. 2 and 3 resident of village- Pothia Raiyam, PO Raiyam, PS Bhairav Asthan, District- Madhubani. .... .... Opp. Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. M.S. Hoda, with Mr. Surya Narain Yadav, Advocates For the State : Mr. Umanath Mishra, APP For the Opp. Party/s : None ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 5 16-08-2012 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. Despite issuance of notice to the private opposite parties by order dated 03.07.2007 and despite the fact that opposite party no.2 has entered appearance through a lawyer, nobody is present on behalf of the private opposite parties to contest the matter. On 14.08.2012 also this matter was argued for some time, but by an oral order, it was passed over for that date, so that learned counsel for the private opposite parties appears in this matter for placing their points of view. Unfortunately, despite the adjournment and opportunity given, none is appearing even today on behalf of private opposite parties to contest the matter. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the correctness, legality and propriety of the impugned order dated 18.01.2007 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna High Court CR. REV. No.448 of 2007 (5) dt.16-08-2012 2 / 3 2 Madhubani, in M.R. No. 14 of 2001, whereby the claim of maintenance made on behalf of the private opposite parties [STATUTE] rected to make payment of maintenance @ Rs. 500/- per month to each of them from the date of the filing of the petition i.e. 08.05.2001. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had taken the plea of divorce of O.P. No. 2 before the learned Family Court, Madhubani and had produced the materials to demonstrate that opposite party no.2 is living in adultery. It is also the case of the petitioner that he has not fathered the opposite party no.3. According to the learned counsel, without considering and deciding all these issues the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Madhubani, has allowed the aforesaid maintenance case by the impugned cryptic order dated 18.01.2007, which requires reconsideration. On examination of the impugned judgment and the materials available on record, this Court also finds that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Madhubani has not decided all the issues, which were raised on behalf of the parties, yet the claim of maintenance made on behalf of private opposite parties has been allowed. In the considered opinion of this Court, the entire matters require reconsideration and fresh decision by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Madhubani keeping in mind the scheme, scope, and mandate of Section 125 Cr.P.C. For the reasons recorded above, the impugned order dated 18.01.2007 passed in M.R. No. 14 of 2001 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Madhubani is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Madhubani for fresh decision after giving reasonable opportunity Patna High Court CR. REV. No.448 of 2007 (5) dt.16-08-2012 3 / 3 3 of hearing to all concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that the petitioner shall appear with a certified copy of the present order before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Madhubani on 24th September 2012. Thereafter, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Madhubani shall proceed in the matter afresh and all endeavours shall be made to dispose of the matter afresh within a maximum period of nine months from the date of appearance of the petitioner. It is clarified that if the petitioner fails to appear before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Madhubani on 24th September 2012 with a certified copy of the present order, then it shall be construed that the present revision application filed on his behalf has finally been rejected by this Court and in that case the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Madhubani shall be at liberty to get the impugned judgment implemented and entire amount of maintenance recovered from the petitioner. It is further clarified that if despite opportunity given to the parties they fail to cooperate for early disposal of the maintenance case and they fail to produce their materials/ evidence in support of their respective case, then the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Madhubani shall be at liberty to decide the matter afresh on the basis of the materials available on record. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the application stands allowed. BTiwary/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 125

Statute Text:
Section 125 of the Indian Penal Code. Waging war against any Asiatic power in alliance or at peace with the Government of India, or abetting the waging of such war. Whoever wages war against the Government of any Asiatic Power in alliance or at peace with the Government of India or attempts to wage such war, or abets the waging of such war, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.