Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010231142025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1278/2025 MOMINUR ISLAM S/O- ASKOT ALI. R/O- VILL.- BARSHI PART-I, P.O.- LAKHIGANJ, P.S.- BILASIPARA, DIST.- DHUBRI, ASSAM. VERSUS BEGUM AZIZA HUSSAIN D/O- ANOWAR HUSSAIN. R/O- VILL.- SHUKLARTARI, P.O.- LAKHIGANJ, P.S.- BILASIPARA, DIST.- DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN - 783345. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M KHAN, MS J AKTAR,MR A K DAS Advocate for the Respondent : MR. M U MONDAL, MR. S S AHMED BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 04.02.2026 Heard Mr. M. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.S. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. By this application filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, the Page No.# 2/4 petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.06.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bilasipara in Misc Case No.166/2018. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 19.09.2025 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bilasipara, Dhubri in Criminal Revision No. 08/2025 by which the revision was dismissed. 3. Mr. Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide the order dated 30.06.2025, the learned Court had held that almost 5 years had elapsed since the case was instituted i.e., 17.02.2020 but the petitioner had taken adjournments on various grounds and finally the petitioner prayed by way of an application to examine defence witnesses. The Court was not satisfied with the grounds sought for adjournment and the Petition No. 813/2025 was rejected and the defence witness stood closed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that during the years of pendency of the said Misc Case No. 166/2018, he had filed various Revision Petition against other orders of the Court and as such delay occurred. The learned counsel submits that he had filed the Criminal Revision vide CR. Case No. 07/2023 and Misc Case No. 03/2023 before the Addl. District and Sessions Judge at Bilasipara against order dated 01.03.2023 which is pending disposal in the Court of the Addl. District and Sessions Judge at Bilasipara. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that he had also filed other criminal revision petition before other Courts. He, as such, submits that on genuine grounds, he had taken adjournment in the present petition which had resulted in 5 years delay in the said case. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that against the order dated 30.06.2025, the petitioner has filed a Revision Application being CR Page No.# 3/4 Case No. 08/2025 and the learned Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Bilasipara, Dhubri, after hearing the parties, vide order dated 19.09.2025 had held that the petitioner had no reasons to take further adjournments as adjournments were taken for five long years which is against the principle of speedy disposal of a case. It was held that the ground that he may place the deed of divorce which is by way of an affidavit wherein it was stipulated by the respondents that she would not claim maintenance for herself or her daughter cannot be a ground for seeking adjournment as a divorce made between parties through affidavit is not recognisable under the law and there was no necessity of seeking the original deed of affidavit and as such the prayer made by the petitioner was rejected and the Revision Petition was dismissed. Against the same, the petitioner has filed the instant application under Section 528 of the BNSS 2023. 6. Mr Khan, the learned counsel mainly submits that he had genuine reasons for filing the adjournment application before the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Bilasipara and that he may be allowed an opportunity to place defence witness. More so, to show that when divorce was entered into between the parties, there was an agreement that the respondent would not claim maintenance to her or to her daughter. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner also prays that he may be allowed to place other facts before the Court before the final adjudication thereof. 8. Mr. S.S. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent however submits that the ground taken by the petitioner that he would submit the deed of divorce in order to show that the respondent had relinquished her right to claim maintenance is already decided by the Revision Court and that he has no further arguments to place. He further submits that 5 long years have elapsed and the petitioner sought adjournment on one or the other ground which is not Page No.# 4/4 permissible under the law. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records. 10. It is noticed that the petitioner had filed the application for maintenance and the said case was registered as M.R Case No. 166/2018 on 01.03.2023 and thereafter, the petitioner had filed an application under the DV Act which was however dismissed vide order dated 04.05.2024 by the learned Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bilasipara. 11. In the instant case, however the petitioner wants to adduce evidence by way of a defence witness in order to place some more facts before the Court. For the ends of justice, the same is allowed as a last opportunity to make an application to adduce evidence as defence witness before the learned court on the next date fixed. 12. As such, the order dated 30.06.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the order dated 19.09.2025 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bilasipara, Dhubri in Criminal Revision Petition 08/2025 is set aside and quashed. 13. Stay order dated 19.12.2025 stands vacated. 14. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant