Patna High Court
Minta DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR JHA
Holding
The High Court affirmed the trial court’s order, finding no infirmity or illegality, and dismissed the revision petition.
Summary
Minta Devi filed a revision petition challenging the order of the Principal Judge of the Family Court, Saran, which dismissed her miscellaneous application seeking fresh examination of witnesses and alleging tampering with evidence in a 2013 maintenance case. She claimed that court records had been altered and signatures of presiding officers forged, and therefore the trial court should set aside its order. The State, represented by an APP, and the opposite party’s counsel opposed the petition, asserting that the trial court had duly considered all contentions and found no manipulation. The High Court examined the record, noted that the trial court had addressed the differences in signatures and concluded there was no fabrication, and held that fresh examination of witnesses was not permissible after such a lapse of time. Consequently, the High Court affirmed the trial court’s order and dismissed the revision petition, directing the trial court to expedite disposal of the maintenance matter.
Issues considered
- Whether the order dismissing the petition to re‑examine evidence can be set aside on the ground of alleged tampering and forged signatures.
- Whether fresh examination of witnesses is permissible under the applicable statutory provisions given the lapse of time since the original proceedings.
- Whether the trial court’s findings that there was no manipulation in the records constitute an infirmity or illegality warranting interference.
Subjects
- maintenance
- family court
- evidence tampering
- revision petition
- fresh examination of witnesses
- forged signatures
- procedural law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.620 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-0 Thana- District- Nalanda
======================================================
Minta Devi, Wife of Jitendra Paswan, Resident of Village - Telmar, P.O.-
Telmar, P.S.- Harnaut, District - Nalanda, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Jyoti Ranjan Jha, Advocate
Mr. Shristi Rani, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Anant Kumar, APP
For the opposite party : Mr. Mohit Shriwastava, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 16-01-2026
Today the record has been put up under the heading
‘For Orders (On Petition)’, but with consent of the parties, I
intend to dispose of this revision petition at this stage itself.
2. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated
08.05.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Saran at Chapra in Miscellaneous Case No. 119/2021, arising
out of Maintenance Case No. 08(M)/2013 whereby and
whereunder miscellaneous case filed on behalf of the petitioner
has been dismissed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid order as the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.620 of 2024 dt.16-01-2026
2/4
petitioner filed the aforesaid miscellaneous case for scrutinizing
the original record/evidence and to take evidence of all the
witnesses afresh, who have been examined, on the ground that
there has been tempering with the record and certain pages were
replaced from the evidence of witnesses of the petitioner, who is
also the petitioner before the court of learned Principal Judge,
Family Court. The petitioner cited specific instance where
records were found manipulated and signatures of the learned
Presiding Officers were fabricated. However, learned Principal
Judge, Family Court, Saran at Chapra did not consider the facts
and dismissed the miscellaneous case of the petitioner. The
learned counsel further submits that the matter is very serious,
still the learned Principal Judge, Family Court failed to
appreciate this fact that even the signatures of the then Presiding
Officer was different at different places. The learned counsel
further submits that the learned trial court failed to appreciate
the fact that the learned counsel for the other side in collusion
with the court staff had changed all the original
evidences/documents and forged the signature of learned
Presiding Officer on the last pages of each deposition. Thus,
learned counsel submits that the impugned order is not
sustainable and the same be set aside.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.620 of 2024 dt.16-01-2026
3/4
5. Mr. Mohit Shriwastava, the learned counsel, who
appears suo moto on behalf of the opposite party of
Maintenance Case No.08(M)/2013, vehemently contends that
there is no merit in the submission of learned counsel for the
petitioner. The learned counsel further submits that the learned
trial court has passed the order after consideration of each and
every contention of the petitioner and the order does not need
any interference. The learned counsel also submits that the
learned Single Judge of this Court, vide order dated 04.03.2016
passed in Cr. Misc. No. 40161 of 2014, directed the learned
Family Court to dispose of the maintenance case within four
months without granting unnecessary adjournment to any party.
6. Perused the record.
7. On perusal of the impugned order, I find that the
learned trial court has considered each and every contention of
the petitioner. The learned trial court has also considered the
difference in signatures of the then learned Presiding Officers
and finally came to the conclusion that there was no
manipulation and fabrication in the documents. Further the
prayer of the petitioner for examining all witnesses afresh is
simply out of question since it is matter of 2013 and all
witnesses have been examined from both sides and any re-
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.620 of 2024 dt.16-01-2026
4/4
examination or fresh examination could only be under the extant
statutory provisions and cannot be for asking of the petitioner.
8. Since I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the
impugned order, the same is affirmed. Accordingly, the present
petition is dismissed.
9. The learned trial court is directed to proceed with
the matter and expeditiously dispose of it.
10. Consequently, pending interlocutory application,
if any, stands disposed of.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
V.K.Pandey/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 17.01.2026
Transmission Date 17.01.2026
Checking your session…