Dismissed¶23

Bashisht Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC7 Jul 2025CR. REV./73/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court; Criminal Revision No. 73 of 2025; Bibek Chaudhuri J; condonation of delay 242 days; Section 5 Limitation Act; maintainability of revision at preliminary stage; Maintenance Case No. 73/2021; Principal Judge Family Court Saharsa; interim maintenance Rs. 3,000 per month; O.P. No. 2 not legally married wife; evidence not yet started; revision and limitation application dismissed; liberty to take action in trial court; Bashisht Yadav v. State of Bihar and Tetri Devi.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; the petitioner is left at liberty to take appropriate action in the trial court to establish his claim. ¶23

Bashisht Yadav Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; the petitioner is left at liberty to take appropriate action in the trial court to establish his claim.

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 242 days in filing Criminal Revision No. 73 of 2025 should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

The revisional court is not in a position, at the preliminary stage of trial of the maintenance case, to come to a finding as to whether the petitioner is the legally married husband of O.P. No. 2; the issue can be decided only after the parties lead evidence, and evidence in Maintenance Case No. 73 of 2021 has not yet started.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

The instant criminal revision is not maintainable before the High Court at this stage.

¶23

Key takeaways

As a consequence of the revision being non-maintainable, the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of the 242-day delay in filing the revisional application is also not maintainable.ratio¶23
Both the interlocutory application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and Criminal Revision No. 73/2025 are dismissed.ratio¶23
The petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate action in the trial court to establish his claim.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Bibek Chaudhuri, J.; oral order dated 07-07-2025) dismissed Criminal Revision No. 73 of 2025 and the accompanying application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 242-day delay. The revision challenged the maintainability of Maintenance Case No. 73/2021 (in which interim maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month had been awarded to O.P. No. 2 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Saharsa) on the ground that O.P. No. 2 is not the petitioner's legally married wife. Holding that the marital-status question cannot be resolved by the revisional court at the preliminary stage before evidence is led, and that evidence in the maintenance case had not yet begun, the Court found the revision non-maintainable at this stage and consequently dismissed the limitation application as well, leaving the petitioner free to take appropriate action in the trial court.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL REVISION No.73 of 2025

¶2

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

¶3

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

¶4

Bashisht Yadav S/o- Upendra Yadav Village- Puraini Ward no 2 P.OGhordaur PS- Salkaua District- Saharsa

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

Tetri Devi D/o- Chhoti Sada Village- Puraini Ward no 2 P.O- Ghordaur PSSalkaua District- Saharsa

¶9

... ... Respondent/s

¶10

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

¶11

Appearance :

¶12

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rananjay Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Tapeshwar Sharma

¶13

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

¶14

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI ORAL ORDER

¶15

4 07-07-2025

¶16

This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the petitioner of Criminal Revision No. 73 of 2025 praying for condonation of delay by 242 days.

¶17

It appears from the record that the O.P. No. 2 filed Maintenance Case No. 73/2021 against the petitioner before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court at Saharsa. In the said proceeding, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court at Saharsa passed an order of interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month in favour of the O.P. No. 2.

¶18

It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that he came to know about the maintenance case no. 73 of 2021 only on receipt of the copy of the order of interim maintenance.

¶19

The maintainability of the maintenance proceeding

¶20

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.73 of 2025(4) dt.07-07-2025 2/2

¶21

has been challenged in the instant case on the ground that the O.P. No. 2 is not the legally married wife of the petitioner.

¶22

It is needless to say that the revisional court is not in a position at the preliminary stage of trial of the maintenance case to come to a finding as to whether the petitioner is the legally married husband of the O.P. No. 2 or not. In order to decide the issue, the parties are required to lead evidence. It is ascertained that evidence has not been started in Maintenance Case No. 73 of 2021 as yet.

¶23

Considering such circumstances, I find that the instant revision is not maintainable before this Court at this stage as a result, the petition for limitation for condonation of delay in filing the revisional application is also not maintainable. Both the interlocutory application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as well as Criminal Revision No. 73/2025 are accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate action in the trial court to establish his claim.

¶24

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)

¶25

Suraj Dubey/-

¶26

U T

Bashisht Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bashisht Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Naresh Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Usha Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Usha Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Vineet Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Vineet Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Sri Rajneesh @ Rajnish Kumar Singh Vs Smt. Swati Kumari