Naresh Prasad Singh @ Naresh Singh v. State Of Bihar & Anr.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 227
Judgment
State Of Bihar and Anr
Mohani Devi W/o Naresh Prasad Singh @ Naresh Singh, R/o Vill.- Nonai, P.S.- Akbarpur, District- Nawada. ... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s For the Respondent/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER Mr.Pankaj Kumar Mr.Sri Bal Mukund Prasad Sinha : : 4 06-07-2022 In this revision application since the impugned order dated 06.04.2018 passed in Maintenance Case No. 84 of 2016 by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nawada is in the nature of an interim order, learned counsel for the petitioner having understood that revision application under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1984 cannot be maintained against an interim order in view of the Hon’ble Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Md. Akil Ahmad Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2016 (4) PLJR 968, prays for permission to convert this application in an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India within two weeks from today. Patna High Court CR. REV. No.716 of 2018(4) dt.06-07-2022 Let this application be allowed to be converted in an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The office shall do stamp reporting within two weeks and after removal of the defects the same will be placed before an appropriate Bench as per roster. Rajeev/- (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.) U Note: The ordersheet duly signed has been attached with the record. However, in view of the present arrangements, during Pandemic period all concerned shall act on the basis of the copy of the order uploaded on the High Court website under the heading ‘Judicial Orders Passed During The Pandemic Period’.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.