In Nitin Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Patna High Court's Dividion Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Prasanna B. Varale passed a 5-page long order dated October 1, 2026, wherein, it granted leave and concluded:"3. A joint application under Article 142 has been filed by both the learned counsel appearing for the parties as I.A. No.291457/2026 bringing to the notice of this Court Settlement Agreement dated 22.07.2026, duly signed by the parties and attested by the learned counsel for both the sides, and authenticated by the learned Mediator to the effect that the matter has been resolved between the parties. 4. We have taken note of the Settlement Agreement. The said agreement is not disputed by both the sides. Both the parties are directed to comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement shall form part and parcel of this order. The Demand Draft for a sum of Rs. 75 Lakhs executed by the appellant and deposited with this Registry shall be permitted to be withdrawn by the respondent No.2.....6. Accordingly, by invoking our power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, there shall be a mutual divorce between the parties, as agreed upon. A decree of divorce shall be drawn up accordingly. 7. In such view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the High Court stands set aside. Accordingly, IA No.291457/2026; i.e. Joint Application on behalf of the petitioner and respondent No.2; and the appeal stands allowed and IA No.303512/2026, seeking necessary directions with regards to waiver of stamp duty on the relinquishment deed stands dismissed." The Court set aside the 5-page long order dated February 13, 2025 by Justice Bibek Chaudhury of Patna High Court
The Court closed/quashed the following 12 cases:
i. Title Suit No. 379/2008, titled "Nitin Kumar vs. Seema" pending before Sub-judge, XII, Vaishali.
ii. Civil Miscellaneous No. 744/2025, titled "Nitin Kumar vs. Smt Poonam Kumari and Others", pending
before the High Court of Judicature at Patna.
iii. Civil Miscellaneous No. 1495/2025, titled "Nitin Kumar vs. Manoj Kumar and others", pending before
the High Court of Judicature at Patna.
iv. Criminal Miscellaneous No. 57501/2025, titled "Nitin Kumar vs. The State of Bihar and others", pending before the High Court of Judicature at Patna.
v. Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2720/2025, titled "Nitin Kumar vs. The State of Bihar and others" pending
before the High Court of Judicature at Patna.
vi. Title Suit No. 827/2022, titled "Seema vs. Nitin Kumar” pending before the Sub-judge, VII, Vaishali.
vii. Complaint Case No. 1335(C), titled "Seema vs. Nitin Kumar and others" pending before the JM 1st Class, Hajipur, Vaishali.
viii. Miscellaneous No. 61/2021, titled "Seema vs. Nitin Kumar before the Principal Judge, Hajipur, Vaishali.
ix. FIR lodged as FIR of Bidupur P.S. Case No. 329/2006, pending before the SDJM, Hajipur Vaishali.
x. Miscellaneous No.3/2012, titled "Seema vs. Nitin Kumar" pending before the Principal Judge, Patna.
xi. Civil Miscellaneous No. 399/2024, titled "Smt. Seema Kumari @ Seema Devi vs. Sri. Nitin Kumar", pending before the High Court of Judicature at Patna.
xii. Certificate Case No. 2/23/24, titled "Seema vs. Nitin Kumar", pending before the Certificate Officer, Hajipur, Vaishali."
Earlier, in Nitin Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2025), by his order dated February 13, 2025, Justice Bibek Chaudhuri had dismissed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the Criminal Revision No. 737 of 2024, after a lapse of about 7 years 9 months and 10 days. Consequently, the criminal revision was also dismissed. Justice Chaudhury had concluded: "9. It is not in dispute that there are other criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner in Vaishali and he had taken steps one after another before the Court to stop those criminal proceedings. Thus, he had knowledge about pendency of the criminal proceeding against him in the Court of Hajipur at Vaishali and it is hard to believe that he did not have any knowledge about the maintenance case. 10. In view of such circumstances, this inordinate delay of 7 years 9 months and 10 days cannot be condoned and accordingly the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is rejected on contest. 11. Consequent upon the rejection of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the criminal revision is also dismissed. 12. With the dismissal of Criminal Revision No. 737 of 2024, the Criminal Revision No. 782 of 2024, which has been filed against the execution of the maintenance order be also dismissed. 13. The parties are at liberty to take steps in the Trial Court."
Before the High Court, it was contended by the petitioner that Seema, the opposite party had filed a maintenance case under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hajipur at Vaishali which was registered as Maintenance Case No. 31 of 2025. In themaintenance case, the petitioner/husband did not receive any notice and withoutservice of notice, the maintenance case was fixed for ex parte hearing. Subsequently, the maintenance case was disposed of ex parte vide order dated November 17, 2016. In the maintenance proceeding, the opposite party/wife purposefully gave a wrong address of the petitioner/husband. Though it was within her knowledge that the petitioner had been residing in Lucknow in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner of the maintenance case stated the address of her husband within the jurisdiction of the district of Vaishali. Therefore, notices sent in the residential as well as the business address of the petitioner were returned unserved. Subsequently on the prayer of the opposite party, notices were attempted to be served through paper publication in a Hindi Daily circulated within Vaishali area. Thus, he had no knowledge about pendency of the maintenance case only when the order of attachment of property of the petitioner was passed and it came to be attached, he came to know about the existence of such case. Then he obtained certified copy of the order and file criminal revision challenging the order of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hajipur at Vaishali under Section 19 (4) of the Family Court’s Act. Therefore, the petitioner had no intentional laches and delay in filing the instant revision and therefore the delay may be condoned. The advocate on behalf of the opposite party/wife had referred to an order, dated July 6, 2015, passed by the Trial Court. The said order stated that notice of the maintenance proceeding was served through paper publication.. It was strongly urged by the advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner had no opportunity to have the knowledge about the maintenance case because he used to reside in Lucknow. The advocate on behalf of the opposite party, on the other hand, had submitted that petitioner ran a school under the name and style of Oasis International School at Vaishali. It was submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that he had no information about existence of any such school run by the petitioner.
Justice Chaudury had observed that though the petitioner contended that he resides in Lucknow, in his application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the petitioner himself states his address of Vaishali. Had the petitioner been staying in Lucknow, he could have stated his Lucknow address in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. He observed: "8. The statement of the petitioner runs in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act with regard to his address reminds this Court likes to quote an old proverb that a wrong doer always leaves behind a mark of his wrong through which his role can be ascertained." Supreme Court set aside the order by Justice Chaudury after having ascertained the core of case of dispute between husband and wife.
No comments:
Post a Comment