AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.r. Shah, J.
1 Rule. Mr. Zalak Pipalia, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of Respondent No. 1 and Mr. L.R. Pujari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of Respondent No. 2.
2 In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, the present Criminal Revision Application is taken up for final hearing today.
3 The present Criminal Revision Application has been preferred by the applicant - original accused to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 08/09/2010 passed by learned Family Court, Junagadh in Criminal Misc. Application No. 195/2010, by which, right of the applicant to lead the evidence has been closed.
4 Having heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and considering the impugned order passed by learned Family Court, Junagadh as well as earlier orders passed by learned Family Court, Junagadh, it cannot be said that learned Judge of the Family Court, Junagadh has committed an error and/or illegality in closing the right of the applicant to lead the evidence. However, it appears to the Court that on imposing reasonable cost to be paid by the applicant to Respondent No. 1 - wife if one additional chance is given to the applicant to lead the evidence, it will meet the ends of justice.
5 Pursuant to the order dtd.13/12/2010 passed by this Court, the applicant has deposited a sum of Rs. 5,000/- with the Registry of this Court towards the cost of the present litigation to be incurred by Respondent No. 1 - wife, which can be directed to be paid to Respondent No. 1- wife, over and above the cost of Rs. 1,000/, which learned Family Court, Junagadh directed the Petitioner to deposit earlier at the time when learned Judge passed an order to close the evidence of the applicant.
6 Mr. Zalak Pipalia, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 - wife has submitted that if suitable direction is given to the learned Court to decide and dispose of the main application for maintenance u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at the earliest and within stipulated time, he did not press the interim maintenance application.
7 In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the present Criminal Revision Application is allowed. The impugned order dated 08/09/2010 passed by learned Family Court, by which, learned Judge has closed the right of the applicant to lead the evidence is hereby quashed and set aside and one additional chance is given to the applicant to lead the evidence on condition that the applicant to deposit a further sum of Rs. 1,000/- towards cost, as per the order passed by the learned Family Court earlier over and above Rs. 5,000/-, which is deposited by the applicant pursuant to the order dated 13/12/2010 passed by this Court. It is agreed by learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant that he will lead the evidence on the next date of hearing and he will not ask for any unnecessary adjournments. Under the circumstances, learned Family Court, Junagadh is hereby directed to decide and dispose of Criminal Misc. Application No. 66/2008 at the earliest but not later than 31/03/2011 without fail. The Petitioner to deposit a further sum of Rs. 1,000/- with the learned Family Court, Junagadh within a period of four weeks from today. On such deposit, it will be open for Respondent No. 1 to withdraw the same. Registry is directed to issue Account Payee Cheque of Rs. 5,000/ in the name of Respondent No. 1, which shall be given to learned advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1 immediately. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.