Dismissed¶24

Minta Devi v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC16 Jan 2026CR. REV./620/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision — Family Court maintenance proceedings — Miscellaneous Case No. 119/2021 arising out of Maintenance Case No. 08(M)/2013 — allegation of tampering with judicial record and fabrication of Presiding Officers' signatures — prayer for fresh scrutiny of record and fresh examination of witnesses — fresh examination only under extant statutory provisions, not as of right — impugned order dated 08.05.2024 affirmed — revision dismissed — trial court directed to dispose expeditiously — Patna High Court — Arun Kumar Jha, J — decided 16-01-2026.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 08.05.2024 affirmed; criminal revision petition dismissed; learned trial court directed to proceed with the matter and expeditiously dispose of it; pending interlocutory application, if any, disposed of. ¶24

Minta Devi Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 08.05.2024 passed in Miscellaneous Case No. 119/2021 dismissing the petitioner's miscellaneous case is sustainable or should be set aside. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

No infirmity or illegality was found in the impugned order; it was affirmed and the present petition was dismissed.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

The learned trial court considered each contention of the petitioner, including the difference in signatures of the then Presiding Officers, and finally concluded that there was no manipulation and fabrication in the documents.

¶21

Key takeaways

The prayer for examining all witnesses afresh was out of question since the matter is of 2013 and all witnesses have been examined from both sides; any re-examination or fresh examination could only be under the extant statutory provisions and cannot be for the asking of the petitioner.ratio¶23
The learned trial court was directed to proceed with the matter and expeditiously dispose of it, and any pending interlocutory application stood disposed of.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court, single Bench (Arun Kumar Jha, J.), Criminal Revision No.620 of 2024, decided 16-01-2026 (oral judgment, NAFR). The petitioner challenged the order dated 08.05.2024 of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Saran at Chapra in Miscellaneous Case No. 119/2021, arising out of Maintenance Case No. 08(M)/2013, whereby her miscellaneous case seeking scrutiny of the original record/evidence and fresh examination of witnesses was dismissed on her allegation that the record was tampered with, pages were replaced from the evidence of witnesses, and signatures of the then Presiding Officers were fabricated. Held, dismissing the revision: (i) the trial court considered each and every contention of the petitioner, including the difference in signatures of the then Presiding Officers, and concluded there was no manipulation and fabrication in the documents; (ii) the prayer for examining all witnesses afresh was out of question since the matter is of 2013 and all witnesses have been examined from both sides, and any re-examination or fresh examination could only be under the extant statutory provisions and not at the petitioner's asking; (iii) no infirmity or illegality was found in the impugned order, which was affirmed. The trial court was directed to proceed with the matter and expeditiously dispose of it, and pending interlocutory application, if any, stood disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL REVISION No.620 of 2024

¶2

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

¶3

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

¶4

Minta Devi, Wife of Jitendra Paswan, Resident of Village - Telmar, P.O.Telmar, P.S.- Harnaut, District - Nalanda, Bihar.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Jyoti Ranjan Jha, Advocate Mr. Shristi Rani, Advocate For the State : Mr. Anant Kumar, APP For the opposite party : Mr. Mohit Shriwastava, Advocate ======================================================

¶9

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT

¶10

Date : 16-01-2026

¶11

Today the record has been put up under the heading ‘For Orders (On Petition)’, but with consent of the parties, I intend to dispose of this revision petition at this stage itself.

¶12

Heard learned counsels for the parties.

¶13

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 08.05.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Saran at Chapra in Miscellaneous Case No. 119/2021, arising out of Maintenance Case No. 08(M)/2013 whereby and whereunder miscellaneous case filed on behalf of the petitioner has been dismissed.

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶15

the petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid order as the

¶16

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.620 of 2024 dt.16-01-2026 2/4

¶17

petitioner filed the aforesaid miscellaneous case for scrutinizing the original record/evidence and to take evidence of all the witnesses afresh, who have been examined, on the ground that there has been tempering with the record and certain pages were replaced from the evidence of witnesses of the petitioner, who is also the petitioner before the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court. The petitioner cited specific instance where records were found manipulated and signatures of the learned Presiding Officers were fabricated. However, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Saran at Chapra did not consider the facts and dismissed the miscellaneous case of the petitioner. The learned counsel further submits that the matter is very serious, still the learned Principal Judge, Family Court failed to appreciate this fact that even the signatures of the then Presiding Officer was different at different places. The learned counsel further submits that the learned trial court failed to appreciate the fact that the learned counsel for the other side in collusion with the court staff had changed all the original evidences/documents and forged the signature of learned Presiding Officer on the last pages of each deposition. Thus, learned counsel submits that the impugned order is not sustainable and the same be set aside.

¶18

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.620 of 2024 dt.16-01-2026 3/4

¶19

Mr. Mohit Shriwastava, the learned counsel, who appears suo moto on behalf of the opposite party of Maintenance Case No.08(M)/2013, vehemently contends that there is no merit in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel further submits that the learned trial court has passed the order after consideration of each and every contention of the petitioner and the order does not need any interference. The learned counsel also submits that the learned Single Judge of this Court, vide order dated 04.03.2016 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 40161 of 2014, directed the learned Family Court to dispose of the maintenance case within four months without granting unnecessary adjournment to any party.

¶20

Perused the record.

¶21

On perusal of the impugned order, I find that the learned trial court has considered each and every contention of the petitioner. The learned trial court has also considered the difference in signatures of the then learned Presiding Officers and finally came to the conclusion that there was no manipulation and fabrication in the documents. Further the prayer of the petitioner for examining all witnesses afresh is simply out of question since it is matter of 2013 and all witnesses have been examined from both sides and any re-

¶22

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.620 of 2024 dt.16-01-2026 4/4

¶23

examination or fresh examination could only be under the extant statutory provisions and cannot be for asking of the petitioner.

¶24