1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.182 of 2010 (Atul Gomaji Lade ..vs.. Sau. Pushpa @ Pallavi w/o Atul Lade) ................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... Shri A.R. Kalraiya, Advocate for the applicant. CORAM : R.G.KETKAR, J. DATED : 14 th DECEMBER, 2010 . Heard Shri A.R. Kalraiya, learned Counsel for the applicant. 2. By this application, the applicant has challenged the order dated 18th August, 2010 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No.4, Nagpur below Exh. 28 in Criminal Application No. E.322/2008. By that order, the learned Judge of the Family Court rejected the application made by the applicant-original respondent for amendment of the written statement. 3. The non-applicant has filed Criminal Application No.E-322/2008 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) for grant of maintenance against the applicant herein. The applicant is husband of the non-applicant and their marriage was solemnized on 19-5-2005. In the 2 application, the non-applicant averred that the applicant herein is running business of Ice Cream Parlor, Stationary, S.T.D., P.C.O., Catering business in the name and style “Suman Catering” at Mohan Nagar, Nagpur and from that he earns Rs.20,000/- per month. The applicant opposed that application by filing written statement on 20th February, 2008. He denied the assertions made by the non-applicant to the effect that he is running business of Ice Cream Parlor, Stationary, S.T.D., P.C.O., Catering business in the name and style “Suman Catering” at Mohan Nagar, Nagpur and he earns Rs.20,000/- per month. In paragraph 7, the applicant averred that he is in private employment and earning on daily basis. In Criminal Application No.E-322/2008, the applicant filed pursis dated 30-1-2010 Exh.26 as to the effect that he wants to adopt the same evidence led by the non-applicant (applicant herein) in Criminal Application No.A-305/2006 (Pushpa/Atul) filed by the non-applicant. He wants to lead further evidence of his mother, brother and a neighbourer. 4. The applicant thereafter filed the application Exh.28 on 22nd June, 2010 for amendment to the written statement. In the application, it is averred that inadvertently he has not given the name of the employer. He claims to be the employee of Nag Drug Agencies, Gandhibagh, Nagpur. It is further averred that he is not the permanent employee of Nag Drug Agencies and he is 3 giving three-four days services in a week as and when required by Nag Drug Agencies. He is collecting cheques and payments from the customers of Nag Drug Agencies since four months and is paid Rs.100-150 according to the services rendered by him. 5. The non-applicant opposed that application by filing say, contending inter alia that the applicant herein had moved an application Exh.27 for amendment of the written statement and the said application is pending. During the pendency of that application, the applicant has again moved application Exh.28 for amendment of the written statement. She, therefore, contended that in order to avoid payment of maintenance, the applicant is delaying the matter. As the application is filed after closure of the evidence, there is no substance in the amendment application. 6. During the course of hearing, the learned Counsel for the applicant stated that the application at Exh.27 for amendment of the written statement was rejected. 7. When the matter came up for admission on 3rd December, 2009 the learned Counsel for the applicant made statement to the effect that the applicant wants to lead further evidence of his brother, mother and neighbour and apart from that he does not want to lead 4 any other evidence. On the basis of this statement and in view of pursis Exh.26 dated 30-1-2010, notice was issued to the non-applicant. Today at the time of hearing, the learned Counsel for the applicant stated that the said statement was wrongly made. He, therefore, prayed for permission to withdraw that statement to the effect that the applicant does not want to lead any other evidence except that of the mother, brother and a neighbour. 8. I have heard learned Counsel for the applicant. From perusal of the written statement and in particular paragraph 7 thereof, it is evident that the applicant has already pleaded that he is in private employment and he is earing on daily basis. If that be so, there was no necessity for filing the application for amendment when the applicant had filed Pursis Exh.26 on 30th January, 2010 wherein he has adopted the same evidence led by the non- applicant in Petition No.A-305/06 and he has further positively asserted that he wants to lead evidence of his mother, brother and neighbour. Even the applicant had made application at Exh.27 for amendment of the written statement, which I am told was rejected by the learned trial Court. 9. The present application Exh.28 is made for amendment of the written statement. The learned trial Judge has rejected that application by observing that parties have closed their evidence as also the applicant has 5 filed pursis. Having regard to the length of delay in filing the application at Exh.28 and also the applicant has not come forward with any specific reason for not raising such amendment earlier, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the application for amendment does not appear to be bona fide. He accordingly rejected the said application. I do not find that any mistake is committed by the learned trial Court while rejecting the application Exh.28. From the material on record, I find that the learned trial Judge was justified in rejecting the application. The criminal revision application is devoid of substance, hence the same is rejected. 10. After the order was dictated, the learned Counsel for the applicant prayed that he may be permitted to withdraw the statement recorded in the order dated 3rd December, 2010 to the effect that “Apart from this he does not want to lead any other evidence”. The applicant is permitted to withdraw that statement. However it is clarified that this Court has not made any observation as to whether the applicant is entitled to examine any witness other than those mentioned in the pursis dated 30-1-2010 Exh.26. JUDGE pma