JAHANARA BEGUM Vs. RUSTOM ALI BHUYAN @ RUSTOM, BHUYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for short, the Code, read with Sections 19(4) and 10(2) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the petitioner prays for modification of the order dated 30.09.2003 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Karnrup at Guwahati in F.C. (Crl.) No. 67/1994 to grant maintenance to the petitioner with effect from 29.04.1994 instead of with effect from 24.02.2003 @ Rs. 500/- per month and also for setting aside the order dated 29.08.2009 passed in F.C. (Crl.) No. 67/1994 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Karnrup at Guwahati. On the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter was taken up for final disposal at the admission stage. The case was, accordingly, heard on 22.01.2014. As the hearing was not concluded, the same was directed to be listed as a part-heard case. Accordingly, the matter has been listed today. It appears that an additional affidavit was filed by the petitioner when the matter had remained heard-in-part.

(2.) I have heard Mr. M.A. Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner/first party and Mr. D.K. Bordoloi, learned counsel for the opposite party/second party.

(3.) Mr. Bordoloi has submitted that in the additional affidavit, apart from enclosing certain orders of the Court relating to the proceeding in question, some statements have been made with regard to the current income of the petitioner and therefore, he would like to file a response to the additional affidavit. When Mr. Sheikh, learned counsel responded by saying that he will not rely upon the statements made in the additional affidavit regarding the current income of the opposite party/respondent and would only refer to and rely upon the orders enclosed, Mr. Bordoloi has submitted that in that event, he will not pray for time to file an affidavit/objection to the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner.