IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2886 OF 2007. APPLICATION NO.2886 OF 2007. APPLICATION NO.2886 OF 2007. Shri Kashinath Prabhakar @ Prabhat Chavan. ..Applicant. versus Smt. Sujata Kashinath Chavan & Anr. ..Respondents. .... Mr. Anilkumar Patil, for the Applicant. Mr. Prabhanjan Gurjar with P.J. Thorat, for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. D.P. Adsule, APP, for the Respondent-State. .... CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S. OKA, J. : A.S. OKA, J. : A.S. OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 30TH JULY,2008. : 30TH JULY,2008. : 30TH JULY,2008. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the applicant and the Advocate for the first respondent. The first respondent-wife filed an application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Code") claiming maintenance of Rs.1,500/- for herself and for the minor daughter. The petitioner husband filed a reply to the said application on 9th June 2005. An application was made at Exhibit 25 by the Applicant husband in the pending application for seeking permission to amend the reply for incorporating paragraph no.13A. In the said paragraph no.13A, it was alleged that when the parties were called to the police station on 25th November 2004, there was a - 2 - settlement between the parties and accordingly the applicant resumed co-habitation with the first respondent on 10th December 2004. It is alleged that the writings and affidavits have been executed by the petitioner on 11th January 2005, 19th February 2005 and 2nd May 2005 and the first respondent voluntarily left the matrimonial home on 3rd February 2005. The said application was opposed by the first respondent- wife. By the impugned order, the said application was rejected by the learned Magistrate. 2. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the applicant is that the amendment is sought on the basis of the writings/ affidavits executed by the first respondent. Inviting my attention to paragraph no.13 of the reply to the application under section 125 filed by the applicant, he submitted that there is already a foundation laid for the averments which are sought to be introduced by way of amendment. It is submitted that subject to the payment of costs, the amendment ought to have been allowed. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent relying upon the averments made by the applicant in the application for restoration of - 3 - conjugal rights as well as in the application for custody of minor child, submitted that the proposed amendment was clearly an after-thought and same could not have been allowed till the cross-examination of the first respondent was completed. 4. I have considered the submissions. The application for amendment was made after the evidence of the first respondent was recorded. By the proposed amendment, the petitioner wants to contend that on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the parties on 25th November 2004, on 10th December 2004, the parties resumed co-habitation. It is his case that in January and February 2005, the first respondent executed certain writings / affidavits and voluntarily left matrimonial home. 5. Perusal of the averments made in the application for restoration of conjugal rights filed by the applicant on 14th July 2005 shows that there is not even a reference to the said events allegedly occurred in November and December 2004 as well as in January and February of the year 2005. Even in the application for grant of custody of minor child, the said averments are not found. Thus the proposed amendment appears to be an afterthought. - 4 - 6. At this stage, it is not possible to interfere with the order passed by the learned Magistrate by which the application for amendment was rejected. The proceedings under section 125 of the said Code are always of summary nature and the learned Magistrate has rightly declined to entertain the application for amendment which was belatedly made by the applicant. No case for interference is made out. The application is rejected. 7. All contentions on merits in the application under section 125 of the said Code are expressly kept open. [ A.S.OKA, A.S.OKA, A.S.OKA, J.] J.] J.]