Gauhati High Court
I.A.(Crl.)/1066/2025 of SAYED ALI Vs AZIDA KHATUN on 17 March 2026
GAHC010200252025 2026:GAU-AS:3947 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/1066/2025 SAYED ALI S/O ALI HUSSAIN R/O VILL- SIMLABARI P.O. SIMLABARI P.S. BAGUAN DIST. GOALPARA, ASSAM PIN-783129. VERSUS AZIDA KHATUN D/O ASRAF ALI R/O
GAHC010200252025
2026:GAU-AS:3947
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/1066/2025
SAYED ALI
S/O ALI HUSSAIN
R/O VILL- SIMLABARI
P.O. SIMLABARI
P.S. BAGUAN
DIST. GOALPARA, ASSAM
PIN-783129.
VERSUS
AZIDA KHATUN
D/O ASRAF ALI
R/O VILL- KALYANPUR
P.O. BAGUAN
P.S. BAGUAN
DIST. GOALPARA, ASSAM
PIN-783129
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A ROSHID, MS. T BEGUM
Advocate for the Respondent : MS. M K BROWN, AMICUS CURIAE, Linked Case : OTC/0/0
SAYED ALI
GOALPARA
VERSUS
AZIDA KHATUN
GOALPARA
------------
Advocate for : TASNINA BEGUM
Advocate for : appearing for AZIDA KHATUN
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR
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
Date : 18.03.2026 Heard Mr. A. Roshid, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M.K. Brown, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the respondent. This is an application praying for condonation of 688 days in preferring accompanying criminal revision petition. By the order impugned in the criminal revision petition, the petitioner was required to pay a sum of Rupees 4,000/- as maintenance to his wife and children on and from the date of passing of the order by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Goalpara i.e. on 21.06.2023. It has been submitted at the bar that the petitioner has not paid any amount till date. The only reason given for praying for condonation of the delay in preferring the present petition is that the petitioner did not contact his counsel and the counsel also failed to inform him. The Court is not satisfied with the grounds. The Court also not satisfied in the manner in which a maintenance granted by a competent Court of law has not been satisfied for 2 years from the date of passing of the order and then this Court has been approached and even when there is no order of stay, the respondent no. 2 has not been able to benefit from a successful litigation. In view of the above, this Court does not find the interlocutory application for condonation of delay deserving to be entertained. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. This interlocutory application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant