ANURANJANA RAIZADA v. SANJEEV ROHILLA

1

F.A.No.1201/11

22.6.2012 Shri Priyankush Jain, Counsel for appellant.

From the perusal of the record, we find that this appeal is directed

against an order dated 30.11.2010 passed by the 1st Additional Principal

Judge, Family Court, Bhopal in M.J.C.No.327/2009 by which an

application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was decided by the Family

Court. The appellant moved an application for certified copy on 5.4.2011

which was prepared and delivered on 15.4.2011, but this appeal was

filed on 20.12.2011. It is apparent that even if the provision as contained

in section 18 of the Family Courts Act is taken into consideration, the

appeal is barred by limitation, but no objection has been raised by the

office in this regard. The Registrar (Judicial) shall look into the matter.

The impugned order is passed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

against which a criminal revision lies as has been held by the Full Bench

in Rajesh Shukla Vs. Smt.Meena and another 2005(2) MPHT 301. In

these circumstances, the appeal preferred by the appellant under

Section 18 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 does not lie.

This appeal is found incompetent. At this stage, Shri Jain, learned

counsel for appellant submitted that appellant be permitted to withdraw

this appeal with liberty to file a criminal revision in light of the Full Bench

judgment in Rajesh Shukla (supra) alongwith an appropriate application

seeking condonation of delay.

Prayer is allowed.

The appellant is permitted to withdraw this appeal with liberty as

prayed.

Office to return certified copy of the impugned order to the

appellant, if the appellant appears in the office and the photostat copy of

the order shall be retained on record.

With the aforesaid liberty, this appeal is disposed of finally.

No order as to costs.

(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain) Judge Judge

C.