GAUHATI HIGH COURT ISSUES ORDER FOR MIZANUR BHUYAN V/S JIABUN NESA AND ANR CASE

GUWAHATI, India, Sept. 17 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Aog. 19:

1. Heard Mr. A. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent no. 2, State of Assam.

2. Having regard to the issue involved, the case is taken up for consideration at the motion stage itself, dispensing with the procedure of issuance of notice to the respondent no. 1.

3. The instant criminal revision petition under Section 438 and Section 442 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [BNSS] is preferred by the petitioner aggrieved by an Order dated 25.07.2025 passed by the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court at Dhubri ['the Family Court', for short].

4. The respondent no. 1 herein claiming to be the wife of the petitioner, has filed a petition under Section 144, BNSS before the Family Court claiming monthly maintenance from the petitioner. The said application has been registered and numbered as F.C. [Crl.] Case no. 03/2025, wherein the petitioner is the sole opposite party. Notice was issued to the petitioner after registration of the F.C. [Crl.] Case no. 03/2025 for his appearance and filing of written statement. On receipt of notice, the petitioner appeared before the Family Court and in due course, submitted his written statement. Though a number of opportunities were granted to the petitioner to submit his affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities, the petitioner failed to do so.

5. Shorn of unnecessary details, it can be stated that the petitioner in F.C. [Crl.] Case no. 03/2025 submitted her examination-in-chief on affidavit as P.W.1 along with two other witnesses, namely, S.K. Golam Mostafa [P.W.2] and Jahirul Islam [P.W.3] on 18.06.2025. On that day, the present petitioner [the opposite party therein] was absent by filing a petition, Petition no. 65/2025 seeking time for his appearance. The Family Court posted the case on 08.07.2025 next for crossexamination of the PWs, if any. On 08.07.2025, the P.W.1 was present with the other two witnesses, P.W.2 and P.W.3. But, on 08.07.2025 too, the present petitioner [the opposite party therein] was found absent. However, a petition, Petition no. 75/2025 was filed on his behalf seeking adjournment on the ground that on that day he had to join his new place of posting. The present petitioner [the opposite party therein] is a member of the Assam Forest Protection Force. Considering the ground shown in Petition no. 75/2025, the prayer made on behalf of the present petitioner [the opposite party therein] was allowed as a last chance by imposing a cost of Rs. 1,000/-. The Family Court posted the case on 25.07.2025 next for cross-examination of the PWs.

6. On 25.07.2025, P.W.1 along with P.W.2 and P.W.3 was present before the Family Court to face cross-examination. The present petitioner [the opposite party therein] was present physically on that day. But he filed a petition, Petition no. 78/2025 seeking adjournment. In Petition no. 78/2025, the present petitioner [the opposite party therein] stated that he received the copies of the evidence of the PWs and also deposited the cost imposed on him vide Order dated 08.07.2025. He, however, prayed for another date for cross-examining the PWs citing inability on the part of his engaged counsel to cross-examine the witnesses.

7. The learned Family Court observed that last opportunity to cross-examine the PWs was already granted earlier and hence, Petition no. 778/2025 lacked merit due to absence of any plausible cause for adjournment. The Family Court noted that the only ground shown was that the learned engaged counsel was not able to conduct the case. Observing so, the Family Court had decided to close the crossexamination of the PWs. The Family Court also observed that it had been reported that the cost imposed on 08.07.2025 had also not been deposited by the present petitioner [the opposite party therein]. The Family Court proceeded to fix the case on 19.08.2025 for evidence of the opposite party witnesses, if any.

8. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the closure of the opportunity to cross-examine the PWs, the present petitioner has approached this Court by the instant criminal revision petition.

9. Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings has been provided for in Section 346, BNSS. The second proviso to sub-section [2] of Section 346, BNSS, has provided that when witnesses are in attendance, no adjournment or postponement shall be granted, without examining them, except for special reasons to be recorded in writing.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816x%2FvmhKzxHZ9bMh9RaXspDOPxaagwY3Kl%2BpLCRK0l1Hve&caseno=Crl.Rev.P./313/2025&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010179462025&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.