Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 497 (GAU)

Nekib Ahmed v. Wahida Begum

2003-11-10

AMITAVA ROY

body2003
JUDGMENT Amitava Roy, J. 1. Heard Mr. T. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears on behalf of the Respondent. 2. This revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 and 482 of the Cr.PC is directed against the order dated 4.7.2001 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sibsagar in Misc. Case No. 24/94 registered on an application filed by the respondent claiming maintenance for the her minor child under Section 125 Cr.PC. 3. The respondent, claiming herself to be the legally married wife of the petitioner initially filed an application before the learned court below for maintenance for herself as well as for her minor child. The application filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sibsagar was registered as Misc. Case No. 14/88. The learned court below after hearing the parties finally disposed of the same by judgment and order dated 17.3.1993 directing the petitioner to pay maintenance allowance to the respondent for the iddat period at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month Maharana and to return the properties entitled to the respondent. The learned court below also directed the petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 150 P.M. to her minor child for a period of 2 years. On the expiry of the aforesaid period, another application was filed by the respondent before the same court in the same proceeding which was, however, separately registered as Misc. Case No. 24/94. The maintainability of this proceeding was challenged by the petitioner by filing a revision application in the court of the learned Sessions Judge at Sibsagar which was registered as Criminal Revision No. 45(4)94. The said court after hearing the parties" by judgment and order dated 27.1.2000 dismissed the revisions petition of the petitioner. The judgment and order passed in the said revision petition remained unchallenged by the petitioner. When the proceeding in Misc. Case No. 24/94 was started before the learned trial court, the petitioner re-agitated the point relating to maintainability of the said case. The learned trial court by the order impugned in the present proceeding has turned down the objection raised by the petitioner. 4. Mr. When the proceeding in Misc. Case No. 24/94 was started before the learned trial court, the petitioner re-agitated the point relating to maintainability of the said case. The learned trial court by the order impugned in the present proceeding has turned down the objection raised by the petitioner. 4. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as the issue with regard to entitlement of the respondent and her child for maintenance he had been examined and finally disposed of by the learned trial court by the judgment and order dated 17.3.1993, the subsequent application filed by the respondent was not maintainable in law and on facts and therefore the learned court below committed a gross illegality in rejected the challenge with regard to maintainability of the said petition. 5. It transpires from the records that the issue relating to maintainability of the subsequent application registered as Misc. Case No. 24/94 had been raised by the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge, Sibsagar in Criminal Revision No. 45(4)94 which was duly considered and decided against the petitioner. It was held therein that the subsequent application for maintenance was maintainable in law. The petitioner chose not to challenge the said order dated 27.1.2000 before the higher forum and therefore the above finding of the learned court below has become final and binding on the parties. In that view of the matter, it is not permissible on the part of the petitioner to agitate the same issue again and again. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.