Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010028322026 2026:GAU-AS:2244 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./214/2026 ABUL KASIM AND 4 ORS. S/O NIJAM UDDIN R/O VILL- LANKAJAN, JAMUNASIT, P.O. NANDAPUR CHARIALI, P.S. HOJAI, DIST. HOJAI, ASSAM 2: NIJAM UDDIN S/O LATE TAHIR ALI R/O VILL- LANKAJAN JAMUNASIT P.O. NANDAPUR CHARIALI P.S. HOJAI DIST. HOJAI ASSAM 3: GULNEHAR BIBI S/O LATE TAHIR ALI R/O VILL- LANKAJAN JAMUNASIT P.O. NANDAPUR CHARIALI P.S. HOJAI DIST. HOJAI ASSAM 4: ABU BAKAR @ ABU BAKKAR S/O NIJAM UDDIN R/O VILL- LANKAJAN JAMUNASIT P.O. NANDAPUR CHARIALI P.S. HOJAI DIST. HOJAI ASSAM 5: MASUMA BEGUM D/O NIJAM UDDIN Page No.# 2/4 W/O JABIR UDDIN R/O VILL- LANKAJAN JAMUNASIT P.O. NANDAPUR CHARIALI P.S. HOJAI DIST. HOJAI ASSA VERSUS KHALIDA BEGUM D/O MAINUDIDN VILL- DAKHIN LASKAR PATHAR, P.O. LASKAR PATHAR, P.S. LANKA, DIST. HOJAI, ASSAM, PIN-782446 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M Z SHAH, MD P RAHMAN Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 16-02-2026 Heard Mr. M. Z. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This is application filed under Section 528 read with Sections 438/442 of BNSS, 2023 for staying of the proceeding in DV Case No.54/2024 pending before the learned SDJM(M), Hojai and impugned order dated 19.02.2024 and other consequential orders passed by the learned Trial Court. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Shah, learned counsel that the respondent instituted a DV case against the petitioners, who are husband and in-laws of the respondent. After receiving the notices, all the petitioners appeared, filed their W.S. and the case is at the stage of evidence. But, on several consecutive dates, Page No.# 3/4 about 9-10 dates, adjournment was sought for by the learned counsel for the respondent only with the same ground of illness. The petitioners have also annexed all the petitions where the adjournment prayer has been made on the medical ground of the respondent. 4. It is seen that all the petitions are stereo type petitions, wherein, simple ground of illness is brought by the learned engaged counsel for the respondent. 5. It is submitted further by Mr. Shah that after enquiry it has come to the notice of the petitioners that the respondent had already went to Oman and in that regard they also filed a certificate. Accordingly, Mr. Shah, submitted that all the petitioners are unnecessarily harassed by the respondent, who is not even staying in India and hence, prayed for stay of the proceeding till the respondent returns from Oman. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and I have also perused the case record and the annexures appended thereto. It is evident that on several occasions and on 9-10 consecutive dates, petition has been filed on behalf of the respondent seeking adjournment on the same medical ground of illness of the respondent, though it is seen that there is no description of the illness from which she is suffering and the petitions are also not supported with any medical documents. However, adjournments were allowed by the learned Trial Court considering the ground of illness, Thus, it is seen that the case could not proceed even at the stage of evidence only due to absence of the respondent/aggrieved. 7. On the other hand, it is the case of the petitioners that the respondent already went to Oman where she is staying and only to harass the petitioners, her engaged counsel have prayed for adjournment of the case on every Page No.# 4/4 consecutive dates. 8. In view of the above, the learned Trial Court is hereby directed to pass necessary order considering the absence of the respondent in each consecutive dates after hearing the learned counsel for the parties in that regard. 9. The learned Trial Court will also observed that the case is delayed only due to absence of the respondent, who is seeking time through her engaged counsel on each and every date. 10. With the above observation, the present petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant