.'V.'U-U-^'V'V-^- j\/\/\T\j"Lylu~^UTb 'LTc^ 'i^"^ v (^ INTHE HIGH COURT OF JUDICA'BiMRE^ A'ElBiii^lBMR REVISION UNDER SEWiaNlgfeNB) OF THE FAMILY.COiaRaSSJCaBiS^' CRIMINAL REVISION No^Q^fc> / 2006 PETITIONER/ NON-A^PLICANT : MOHD. ASHFAQ HUSAIN, S/0. SHRI ^ALTAF HUSAIN, AGED <!, ^i RESPONDENT/ *PLICANT <^(©fc7 ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/0. WARD N0.2 NAWAPARA RAJIM, POLICE STATION. GOBRA NAWAPARA, TAHSIL ABHANPUR, DISTRICT RAIPUR (C.G.) VERSUS SMT. SAVITA SAHU @ SAFIA KHAN W/0. ROHIT KUMAR SAHU, R/0. FT. DIN DAYAL UPADHYAY NAGAR, GOBRA NAWAPARA, RAJIM, P.S.GOBRA NAWAPARA, TAHSIL ABHANPUR, DISTT. RAIPUR (C.G.) REVISION UNDER SECTION l9f41 OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT FOR QUASHKfe THE •Yl PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION_125. OF THE CODE 4N POROER. P^TfeD - (;.-8-Q6~ OF CRIMINAL PftOCEDURE , PENDING AS' MJC^^">£ No.321/2005 IN THE COURT OF PMNCIPLE JUDGE. FAMILY COURT. RAIPUte(tC.G.). XI-HC-78 w sn^r^iTf^TNT (raTSIT^Tshll* *11*1WI ShHltl 3S? "MI'i<lcl'M, aTflu'16, RlCII'Hy .Gr. ^tv, ?Jo < ^^ /'2-^&i ^^ •^i; 200 3ll^l <<ach (qqig^ST) ?T(iTWTrf?ct3.n^r 14.02.2007 Shri K.A. Ansari, Sr. Advd the appiicant. M.(Cri.)P. No. 23241of20D6 HeSrd. This is an application for The relief column of thel quashment of the entire the cause-title that it is also filed Since the prayer with 11.8.2005 has not been made ih treated for quashment of entire limitation is prescribed, therefo^ petition, the application fiied infructuous and the same is limitation. Heard on admission. The revision is directed Section 125 of the Code of C Principal Judge, Family Court, The contention of learneld petition filed under Section interim order dated 11.8.2005 amount of interim maintenance. his written statement an that the respondent is not validl^ 126 <»ii<ifci41-f*<ii<iTfftec3'<Rit<;i< ^sri^R'an^T ^ate with Shri Syed Imtiaz Aii, counsel for tf cjbndonation of delay in filing the revision. revision would show that it is filed for proceefpings, however, it has been mentioned in for quashment of order dated 11.8.2005. |relation to quashment of order dated i|n the relief column, the revision is being l|)roceedings only and for that purpose.no therefol-e, in view of the relief column of this uhder Section 5 of ihe Limitation Act is dfemissed. The revision is wel] within the for quashment of the proceedings under iriminal Procedure pending before the R^ipur. counse! for the applicant is that in a Cr.P.C., the Family Court passed an ^nd awarded a sum of Rs.1,200/- as an |-le submits that subsequent to the filing of amendfrient was filed in which it was mentioned tfiarried wife of the applicanUherefore, P.T.O. r~~ t 't XI-HC-78 ^n^T^iTf^ri?; craTsn^rgOTq; •»., ^ 3^- ^FTT^T, s^frms, feroy -....•^^•y.0' 66612-^e-k w^rr gww • •••••...-.;.-.y.y.—^ ^^Q 341^1 ^sittt (I^g3^8T) WcTTWHfgcTSn^T ^- she was not entiUed for grant of wifepfrnTTOft'^'fe^rfSTRR ^sri^cran^T maintenance. He aiso submits tfiai amendment was allowed but e|/en after allowing the amendment, in absence of any rebuttal the petiti()n was not dismissed and the same was allowed to be continued by the F^mily Court. He further submits that since the grounife about the validity <jf marriage was raised by the appiicanf ?< ' before the Family Court and the'^ame was not rebutted by.the respondent by filing a consequential amendfljient, therefore, the Family Court ought to have dismissed the petition hold|ng that the marriage between the parties was not a legat marriage and tS-je respondent vi/as not entitled to receive the amount of maintenance. This argument advanced t>y the learned counsel for the applicant is totally misconceived. It is alwa)js within the right of a party to raise the grounds which may go to the |-oute of the matter but it is not at once expected by the Court at the st^ge of pleading that on the pieadings oniy the matter shall be disposed ofjrather the correct course of law is to take those grounds as fhe fact plead^d by the party and to award opportunity to the parties to substantiate ar|d/or rebut the grounds by way of the evidence. There is no reas^n for this Court to quash the entire proceedings filed by the resp herein had raised the pleading void and the said pleading was ?ndent on the ground that the applicant that the marriage between the parties was lot rebutted by the opposite party at once. 1 do not find any force 1(1 the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant. The revision has no mertts and the same is dismissed. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge P.T.O.