1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.281/2009. (Gajanan s/o Shriram Pakhare Vs. Sow. Archana w/o Gajanan Pakhare &Ors.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.VB Garud, Advocate for Petitioner; Mr. VD Godbharale, APP for State. ___ CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 5 th October,2009. 1. Heard learned Counsel. 2. For the orders to be passed, service upon Respondent nos.1 and 2 not warranted. 3. Rule made returnable forthwith. 4. The matrimonial controversies led to the wife – Smt. Archana to initiate proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before learned Judge of the Family Court, at Aurangabad. The husband come with a case of mutual divorce being registered at the office of Registrar of Documents. An application below Exhibit-14 dated 22.6.2009 was moved by the husband – Gajanan seeking to allow to engage a counsel, which the learned Judge has rejected. Identical application was also moved by the wife – Archana dated 7.9.2009 ( Exhibit-18), same is also rejected by the learned 2 Judge. 5. Considering the very scope of the matter, since there is already affidavit of the wife, I do not see that there is such issue, which requires assistance from an advocate to both the parties. The observation of the learned Judge that it is a petition for maintenance and permission to engage an advocate cannot be considered, in the set of above situation, is proper. The learned Judge is bound to dispose of the matter at the earliest, considering the peculiarity projected therein. 6. Criminal Revision dismissed. Rule discharged. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/crrv281.09