IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 3290 of 2010 Between: Rambilas Agarwal. … Petitioner And Ms.Anita Agarwal and another … Respondents This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 3290 of 2010 ORDER:- This petition is filed by the husband under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. questioning order dated 18.01.2010 in Crl.M.P.No.40 of 2010 in M.C.No.215 of 2007 on the file of Additional Family Court cum Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for Trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Case, Hyderabad by which the lower court dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner for reopening the case for his examination as witness. The first respondent/wife filed maintenance case in the lower court under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and it is pending since the year 2007 for the last three years. It is stated that several adjournments were sought for by the husband for leading his evidence on several grounds and they were granted. Finally, evidence of the husband was closed by the lower Court. It is stated that the husband is dragging on the proceedings in the lower Court on one ground or the other and that previously the husband came up with a petition for changing the Advocate and now the petitioner wants to file certain documents after obtaining certified copies thereof. The petitioner’s counsel stated that the petitioner had already obtained certified copies of documents required for filing the same in the maintenance case and that the petitioner is ready to proceed with his evidence as on today. In the circumstances, the lower court is directed to give one and only opportunity to the petitioner/husband to lead his evidence on condition of the petitioner/husband paying costs of Rs.5,000/- to the first respondent/wife in the lower Court. If the petitioner/husband does not avail the said opportunity, the lower court is directed to pronounce the order on the basis of material already on record, preferably within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of. ________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J April 13, 2010 lmv