Gauhati High Court
Crl.Rev.P./413/2026 of DR. ASIF AHMED Vs DR NAZIMA KHATUN on 13 August 2026
GAHC010172472026 2026:GAU-AS:11549 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./413/2026 DR. ASIF AHMED SON OF MD. FIZNUR AHMED, R/O- VILLAGE CHOTO RUPAHI, POLICE STATION NAGAON (SADAR), DISTRICT NAGAON, ASSAM VERSUS DR NAZIMA KHATUN
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010172472026
2026:GAU-AS:11549
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./413/2026
DR. ASIF AHMED
SON OF MD. FIZNUR AHMED, R/O- VILLAGE CHOTO RUPAHI, POLICE
STATION NAGAON (SADAR), DISTRICT NAGAON, ASSAM
VERSUS
DR NAZIMA KHATUN
W/O DR. ASIF AHMED, D/O MD. JAMALUDDIN AHMED, RESIDING AT
VILLAGE NAGAJAN, P.O. AND P.S. KHARUPETIA, DISTRICT DARRANG, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR SAURADEEP DEY, MR D BORAH,SHELI CHAKRABORTY
Advocate for the Respondent : ,
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
14.08.2026 Heard Mr. S. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. In this petition under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the impugned Page No.# 2/2 order dated 04.08.2026, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S), Darrang, Mangaldai, in Misc. Case No.279/2023. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order dated 04.08.2026, the learned S.D.J.M.(S), Darrang, Mangaldai, in Misc. Case No.279/2023, has allowed the Petition No.695/2025 filed by the respondent herein and directed to issue search warrant for recovery of the articles mentioned in the Petition No.695/2025 and to handover custody of the same to the respondent herein on execution of zimma bond of Rs.30,000/- and also directed the Officer-in-Charge, concerned police station to take all the needful action for execution of the search warrant.
3. Mr. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court has passed the impugned order without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to file objection and in contravention of the Rule 10(1)(c) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006 by directing police to execute the warrant instead of asking the petitioner office and as such, the impugned order is illegal and therefore, he has contended to interfere with the same.
4. Having heard the submission of Mr. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the relevant provisions of law, this Court is inclined to dispose of this petition by directing the petitioner to file a petition before the learned Trial Court raising his grievance for not affording an opportunity of filing objection in the said petition and also raising objection for non-compliance of Rule 10(1)(c) of 2006 Rules, and on such petition being filed, the learned Trial Court shall consider the same in accordance with law. And till disposal of the said petition, the impugned order dated 04.08.2026, stands stayed. Comparing Assistant Sd/- Robin Phukan JUDGE