Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges
Acts
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges
Acts
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    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.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    ANURANJANA RAIZADA v. SANJEEV ROHILLA
    (Jun 22, 2012)