Noor Fatma And Another vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

N.S. Dhanik, J

This criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionists to set-aside the impugned judgment and order dated 13.05.2011 passed by learned

Judge, Family Court, Haridwar.

Learned counsel for the revisionists filed a supplementary affidavit dated 10.11.2020 filing therewith a copy of Nikahanama dated 30.10.2008

wherein the revisionist no. 1 namely Noor Fatma is shown as Bride (Dulhan) and respondent no. 2 namely Gulfam s/o Naseem Ahmed Qureshi is

shown as the Groom (Dhulha). He also filed a copy of bail order dated 18.08.2010 passed by District Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Bail Application

No. 942 of 2010, “Gulfam vs. State†wherein it is mentioned that the revisionist no. 1 herein is married to the second respondent. Learned counsel

for the revisionists would submit that the Family Court, Haridwar passed the impugned order solely on the basis that the revisionist no. 1 herein is

failed to proof whether she is the wife of respondent no. 2 or not?, however the document as filed along with supplementary affidavit clearly shows

that the revisionist no. 1 is the wife of respondent no. 2.

Despite sufficient service, none turns up on behalf of the second respondent.

After arguing at some length, learned counsel for the revisionists limits his prayer only to the extent that the matter may kindly be remanded back to

the lower Court with a direction that the Court below may give a fresh opportunity of being heard to the revisionists as well as to the second

respondent.

Learned State Counsel does not seriously object to the prayer made on behalf of the revisionists. However, he would submit that fresh/additional

evidences would not be admitted at the stage of revision.

Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the present criminal revision is disposed of with the following

directions:-

(i) The judgment and order dated 13.05.2011 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Haridwar is hereby set-aside.

(ii) The matter is remanded back to the learned Court below to decide the aforesaid case afresh.

(iii) Fresh opportunity of being heard shall be given by the lower Court to the revisionist as well as to the second respondent herein.

Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.