Dismissed¶19

Daya Shankar @ Daya Shankar Kumar v. Puja Kumari

Patna HC29 Jul 2025CR. REV./633/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Daya Shankar @ Daya Shankar Kumar v. Puja Kumari; CR. REV. No.633 of 2024; Patna High Court; decided 29-07-2025; Bibek Chaudhuri, J; Maintenance Case No. 565 of 2022; Principal Judge, Family Court, Lakhisarai; Section 125 CrPC; refusal of adjournment; cross-examination of witness Tushar Singh; advocate absence; allegation of bias and partisanship against trial court; sufficient opportunity to opposite party; summary disposal of maintenance proceeding; order dated 03.07.2024 upheld; criminal revision dismissed; no interference.

What did the court decide?

The Court is not in a position to disbelieve the trial court's observation that the witness had already been cross-examined at length and that sufficient opportunity was given to the opposite party. ¶18

Daya Shankar @ Daya Shankar Kumar Vs Puja Kumari — Maintenance and Alimony | Patna HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 03.07.2024 of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lakhisarai in Maintenance Case No. 565 of 2022 — whereby the petitioner's applications dated 03.02.2024 and 02.05.2024 were not allowed and the proceeding was directed to continue on the footing that the witness had been cross-examined at length with sufficient opportunity to the opposite party — warranted interference in criminal revision.

¶11

Court's answer

The Court is not in a position to disbelieve the trial court's observation that the witness had already been cross-examined at length and that sufficient opportunity was given to the opposite party.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

In the circumstances, the Court finds no reason to interfere with the trial court's order dated 03.07.2024.

¶18

Key takeaways

Observation in passing: the series of orders passed on 03.02.2024 suggests the ways and means by which a section of Trial Court Advocates resists the Presiding Officer from disposing of a proceeding at an early date; whenever a firm order is passed, the concerned officer is castigated with allegations of bias and partisanship.obiter¶17
Because a proceeding under Section 125 of the CrPC is required to be disposed of in a summary procedure, the learned Trial Judge did not allow the petitions dated 03.02.2024 and 02.05.2024 and directed the case to proceed.obiter¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision No.633 of 2024, High Court of Judicature at Patna (Bibek Chaudhuri, J), decided 29-07-2025 — Revision against the order dated 03.07.2024 of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Lakhisarai in Maintenance Case No. 565 of 2022 (Section 125, CrPC) DISMISSED; no interference. On 03.02.2024 witness Tushar Singh was examined in chief; cross-examination did not take place owing to the absence of the opposite party's advocate (the present petitioner). As the witness, a school teacher, had come on leave, cross-examination was fixed for 02:00 pm the same day; the advocate remained absent at the 02:30 pm call, and at 03:15 pm alleged bias and partisanship, pressing for release of the witness and a fresh date, and pursued applications dated 03.02.2024 and 02.05.2024. By order dated 03.07.2024 the trial court disposed of the applications, holding inter alia that the witness had already been cross-examined at length and sufficient opportunity had been given to the opposite party, and directed the case to proceed, the Section 125 proceeding being summary in nature. The High Court declined to disbelieve those findings and found no reason to interfere. In passing, the Court observed that the day's sequence of orders showed how a section of trial-court advocates resist early disposal, casting allegations of bias and partisanship whenever firm orders are passed.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL REVISION No.633 of 2024

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-0 Thana- District- Lakhisarai

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Daya Shankar @ Daya Shankar Kumar, S/o- Anuj Prasad Singh @ Anuj Prasad Village- Nardidih Ps- Nardiganj Dist- Nawada

¶5

... ... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Puja Kumari D/o- Tripurari Singh, R/o- Naya Tola Ward no 10 Lakhisarai, behind K S S College, P.O. + P.S. Dist- Lakhisarai

¶8

... ... Respondent

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Bijay Kumar Pandey, Advocate Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advcoate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Madhumay Madhup, Advocate Mr. Bibhuti Narayan, Advocate ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI ORAL ORDER

¶11

4 29-07-2025 The order dated 03^rd July 2024 passed in Maintenance Case No. 565 of 2022 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Lakhisarai is under challenge in the instant criminal revision.

¶12

The dispute relates to Court proceedings on 03^rd February 2024. On that date, the petitioner in Maintenance Case No. 55 of 2022 was present along with one witness, namely, Tushar Singh. He was examined in chief. However, due to absence of the learned Advocate on behalf of the opposite party (the petitioner herein). the said witness was not cross-examined. The learned trial Judge fixed the case for cross-examination at 12:30 pm. The learned Advocate for the opposite party/petitioner prayed for adjournment by fixing another date

¶13

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.633 of 2024(4) dt.29-07-2025 2/3

¶14

for cross-examination of the said witness. The witness stated that he is a teacher of a school and he came to the court taking leave from his duty, therefore, the trial court fixed the case for cross-examination of the said witness at 02:00 pm. The case was again called on at 02:30 pm but the learned Advocate on behalf of the opposite party was not present. At 03:15 pm, he made a wild allegation against the court that the court is biased and partisan, as in spite of his repeated prayer, the court was not adjourning the case. He demanded that the witness ought to be released for the day and another date be fixed for crossexamination of the said witness. The trial court, however, did not accede to the demand of the learned Advocate for the opposite party/petitioner herein which led him to file an application before the court below on 02^nd May, 2024 and also on 03^rd February, 2024. The said application was disposed of by the trial court on 03^rd July 2024, holding, inter alia , that the said witness had already been cross-examined at length and sufficient opportunity was given to the opposite party.

¶15

Since the proceeding under Section 125 of the CrPC is required to be disposed of in a summary procedure, the learned Trial Judge did not want to allow the petitions dated 03^rd February 2024 and 02^nd May 2024 and directed the case to be

¶16

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.633 of 2024(4) dt.29-07-2025 3/3

¶17

proceeded with. The said order dated 03^rd July 2024 is under challenge in the instant criminal revision. The series of orders passed on 03^rd February 2024 suggests the ways and means by which a section of Trial Court Advocates resists the Presiding Officer from disposing of a proceeding at an early date. Whenever any firm order is passed, the concerned officer is castigated with allegations of bias and partisanship. It appears from the order dated 03^rd July 2024 that the witnesses had already been cross-examined at length, and sufficient opportunities were given to the opposite party/petitioner.

¶18

I am not in a position to disbelief such observation made by the trial court. In view of such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere against the order passed on 03^rd July, 2024.

¶19

With the aforesaid order, the instant criminal revision is dismissed.

¶20

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)

¶21

Suraj Dubey/-

¶22

U T

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 03.07.2024 in the maintenance case, disposing of the petitioner's applications dated 03.02.2024 and 02.05.2024: the applications were not allowed and the proceeding was directed to continue, on the footing that the witness had already been cross-examined at length and sufficient opportunity had been given to the opposite party.¶11
Principal Judge, Family Court, Lakhisarai · 03.07.2024
Prior proceeding
Proceedings of 03.02.2024 in the maintenance case: the maintenance-case petitioner attended with one witness, Tushar Singh, who was examined in chief; the trial judge fixed the case for cross-examination the same day at 12:30 pm.¶12
Prior proceeding
The witness could not be cross-examined on 03.02.2024 because the advocate for the opposite party in the maintenance case — identified in the judgment as the present revision petitioner — was absent.¶12
Prior proceeding
As the witness, a school teacher, had attended court on leave from duty, the trial court fixed his cross-examination for 02:00 pm the same day instead of releasing him; the case was called on again at 02:30 pm but the opposite party's advocate was still not present.¶14
Prior proceeding
At 03:15 pm on 03.02.2024 the opposite party's advocate made a wild allegation that the court was biased and partisan notwithstanding his repeated prayers for adjournment, and demanded that the witness be released for the day with a fresh date fixed for cross-examination.¶14
Prior proceeding
The trial court did not accede to the demand; the opposite party (the present petitioner) pursued the matter through applications before the court below dated 02.05.2024 and 03.02.2024.¶14
Prior proceeding
Treating the Section 125 CrPC proceeding as one requiring summary disposal, the learned Trial Judge did not allow the petitions dated 03.02.2024 and 02.05.2024 and directed the case to be proceeded with.¶15
Prior proceeding
By its order of 03.07.2024 the trial court disposed of the applications, recording inter alia that the witness had already been cross-examined at length and that sufficient opportunity had been given to the opposite party.¶14

Daya Shankar @ Daya Shankar Kumar v. Puja Kumari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Daya Shankar @ Daya Shankar Kumar v. Puja Kumari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikash Gaurav Vs the State of Bihar

Seema Verma Vs The State of Bihar

Krishna Manjhi @ Bhola Manjhi @ Triloki Manjhi Vs The State of Bihar

Ranjan Prasad Srivastava Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Murshid Alam Vs The State of Bihar

Abdul Mannan @ Munna @ Md. Munna Vs The State of Bihar