1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 35 OF 2010 Ambadas Mahadeo Pawade, aged 50 yrs., Occu. Service, R/o Durgapur Open Cast Mine, Chandrapur. Vs. Kusum Ambadas Pawade, aged 40 yrs., Occu. Business, R/o Nehru Nagar, Chandrapur. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri K. D. Deshpande Adv for petitioner. CORAM: C.L. PANGARKAR J. Dated: 21 st JUNE, 2010. Heard counsel for the applicant. 2. This revision has been preferred against the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge whereby he allowed the application vide Ex. 68 filed before the Magistrate in maintenance proceedings. 3. Wife had filed proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Civil Procedure for maintenance. She had examined herself and the witness for the present petitioner who is an original respondent no.2 examined on 02.08.2008. The witnesses of the present petitioner were 2 examined but they could not be cross examined, therefore, on 16.08.08 application for recalling these witnesses for cross examination was filed by the present respondent. Said application was rejected on the ground that sufficient opportunity was given. Against that order a revision was preferred before the Sessions Judge. Sessions Judge allowed that application on payment of costs of Rs.300/-. Being aggrieved by that order this revision came to be filed. 4. It appears that wife had immediately filed an application for grant of permission to cross examine the witnesses. The said application has been rightly allowed by the Sessions Judge. Since it appears that there was no deliberate attempt on the part of the wife to prolong the matter, She had filed an application immediately on the next day. The discretion as used by the learned Sessions Judge does not appear to have been used in an arbitrary or illegal manner. On the other hand it is a well established principle of law that full opportunity should be given to the parties to defend the case. In the circumstances if the learned Judge has allowed the wife to cross examine the witnesses I think that the order as passed by the learned Sessions Judge does not suffer from any impropriety or illegality. There is no need to interfere with the order passed by the Court below. The revision is dismissed in limine. JUDGE svk 3 4 5 6