MD. RUSTAM, S/O MD. SIRAJ, R/O QTR. NO. M.M.139, MUNNIDIH, BASRI, PS PUTKI, PO MUNIDIH, DIST. DHANBAD Vs. TABBASSUM NAZ, W/O MD. RUSTAM, R/O QTR. NO. M.M. 139, MUNNIDIH, BASRI, PS PUTKI, PO MUNIDIH, DIST. DHANBAD; D/O MOHAMMAD SAJID, R/O REHMAT NAGAR, KOLDIHA, PS GIRIDIH (T), PO & DIST. GIRIDIH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner being aggrieved by order dated 15.6.2015 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Giridih, in M.Case No.323/2011 approached this Honourable Court.

(2.) The petitioner is the husband, who is contesting the claim under Sec. 125 Crimial P.C. The Claim case under Sec. 125 Cr. P.C. was filed sometime in the year 2011. It is submitted that the claimant examined three witnesses on 8.4.2015, and on the same day after recording their evidence, they were discharged. On 5.5.2015, the date was fixed for adducing evidence on behalf of the opposite party-husband. On 15.5.2015, the petition was filed by the husband stating therein that he does not want to lead the evidence on that date as both the parties are ready to compromise the matter. The case was again fixed for 16.5.2015. On 16.5.2015, a similar petition was filed by the husband mentioning that he does not want to adduce the evidence on 16.5.2015 because the parties are ready to compromise the case. The court below on 16.5.2015, on the said petition, closed the evidence of the opposite party. The opposite party thereafter on 15.6.2015 filed an application to recall the order dated 16.5.2015 on the ground that he wants to lead evidence because the compromise failed.

(3.) The learned court below rejected his application by the impugned order dated 15.6.2015 by holding that on the prayer of the opposite party-husband, the evidence been closed on 16.5.2015 and as such the said order cannot be recalled. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 15.6.2015 is absolutely bad and deprives the petitioner to lead evidence. Further he argues that at no point of time the petitioner prayed for closing the evidence and thus order dated 15.6.2015 is erroneous. On the aforementioned fact the petitioner prays to set aside the order dated 15.6.2015.