Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010207862026 2026:GAU-AS:13975-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./493/2026 SRI BARLIN NARZARY SON OF KRISHNA NARZARY RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - AMARPUR, MUSHALPUR, P.O. AND P.S. MUSHALPUR, DISTRICT - BAKSA (BTC), ASSAM VERSUS SMT EZU MONI HAZOWARY DAUGHTER OF KISHORE HAZOWARY, WIFE OF SRI BARLIN NARZARY , RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 40, JUNAK NAGAR, KAHILIPARA, GUWAHATI, KAMRUP M, ASSAM 781019.PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHARA MEDHI PARA, P.O. AND P.S. DUDHNOI, GOALPARA, ASSAM- 783124 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R SARMA, H CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NCHUMBEMO MOZHUI ORDER Date : 22.09.2026 (M. Zothankhuma, J) 1. Heard Mr. R. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the impugned order dated 01.08.2026 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. II, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in FC (Crl.) Case No. 39/2022 should be set aside and the petitioner should be allowed to cross-examine the Prosecution Witness. He submits that the above case pertains to the respondent wife's prayer for maintenance Page No.# 2/3 under Section 125 Cr.PC. However, as the petitioner has not been allowed to cross- examine the Prosecution Witness, there would be a grave miscarriage of justice. He submits that FC (Crl.) Case No. 39/2022 is going to be disposed of tomorrow. 2. Mr. R. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent wife is not entitled to maintenance, as she is living in adultery and has refused to live with her husband since 2018. He also submits that the respondent wife went missing in the year 2017, due to which her own father lodged an FIR alleging that she had been kidnapped by one Milan Ali. After the police had recovered the respondent, the respondent, in her statement made before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.PC, had stated that she had voluntarily gone with Milan Ali on her own will and stayed with him in Bangladesh and had sexual intercourse with him. The police then submitted the final report against Milan Ali. 3. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the above are issues that go to the root of the matter in the case of maintenance made under Section 125 Cr.PC and as such, the impugned order dated 01.08.2026 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No.II, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in FC (Crl.) Case No. 39/2022 should be set aside, to allow the petitioner to cross-examine the Prosecution Witness No. 1. He also submits that the learned Family Court is to pass the final judgment in the 125 Cr.PC application i.e. FC (Crl.) Case No. 39/2022 tomorrow, that is 23.09.2026. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner husband. 5. The impugned order dated 01.08.2026 states as follows:- “The Petitioner is present. The Petitioner submitted her written argument. The O.P is present and filed petition no. 1029/2026 praying for recalling PW-1 and also to allow the O.P to cross-examine PW-1. Further, the O.P also prayed for submitting his evidence in defence. I have considered the submission and also gone through the case record. The record reveals that the Petitioner submitted her evidence-on-affidavit on 26.06.2024. The O.P duly Page No.# 3/3 received the evidence of PW-1 and thereafter repeatedly sought for time for cross examination. The court thereafter 10.02.2025 rejected the adjournment petition submitted on behalf of the O.P and cross examination was closed, fixing the case for evidence of DWs. The O.P again sought for 3 adjournments and on 10.09.2025 submitted evidence-on- affidavit of DW-1. However, the O.P remained absent on 15.10.2025, 10.11.2025, 09.01.2026, 07.03.2026, 07.04.2026 and on 10.06.2026 the examination of DW-1 was closed and fixed the case cross for argument. The O.P was repeatedly given chance to cross examine PW-1 and also to adduce evidence. The O.P wilfully delayed the disposal of the present case. The conduct of the O.P is not found to be satisfactory. The present case is filed u/s 125 Cr.P.C which is pending since 01.02.2022. The ground shown for adjournment is not satisfactory, and if the prayer of the O.P is allowed it will further delay the proceeding of the case. The O.P is a government servant and he failed to deposit the interim maintenance, in spite of knowing about the order passed against him. Considering the above, the prayer is rejected. The hearing of the argument is closed. Fixing 23.09.2026 for Judgment.” 6. A reading of the above impugned order dated 01.08.2026 shows that the petitioner herein had repeatedly sought time for cross-examination and had also remained absent on several dates. The impugned order dated 01.08.2026 also shows that the petitioner's prayer for seeking time for cross-examination and the prayer for adjournment had been rejected by the learned Family Court, vide order dated 10.02.2025. The said order dated 10.02.2025 has not been challenged in the present case and as such, the said order dated 10.02.2025 has attained finality as on date. 7. In that view of the matter, even if we are to assume that the prayer of the petitioner should be allowed against the impugned order dated 01.08.2026, the order dated 10.02.2025, which is reflected in the impugned order would still subsist. 8. In view of the above reasons, we do not find any reason to allow the present petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant