1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1890 OF 2007 Shri Sachin Ramesh Mhetre ..Petitioner V/s. Sau. Rohini Sachin Mhetre & ors ..Respondents Mr.A.M.Kulkarni, Advocate, for petitioner Mr.D.P.Adsule, A.P.P, for the State CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 26TH AUGUST, 2008 P.C. . Not on board. 2. Taken on board. 3. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner/husband has taken an exception to the Order dated 7th September, 2007, passed by the learned Magistrate in a pending proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Code”) filed by the 1st respondent/wife for herself and on behalf of her minor daughter. 2 An application for amendment of the application under Section 125 of the said Code was made by the 1st respondent/wife which has been allowed by the impugned order. 4. The first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that what was sought to be invoked by the application was the power under Rule 17, Order 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The second submission is that there is no power vesting the learned Magistrate to allow the amendment of the application under Section 125. The third contention is that in the original application the 1st and 2nd respondents have come out with the case that the medical shop by name Shradha Medical is of the joint family of the petitioner and by the proposed amendment it is sought to be contended that it is the petitioner who is looking after the business of the said shop and entire income earned from the said shop is his exclusive income. He submitted that grant of amendment amounts to allowing the 1st respondent to withdraw an admission in the original application. 3 5. I have carefully considered the submissions. Mentioning of wrong provision of law in the title of the application will not change the nature of the application. The prayer in the application was for seeking permission to amend certain paragraphs of the main application under Section 125 of the said Code. In the original application under Section 125 the said Code the 1st respondent asserted that the joint family of the petitioner was holding 50 Powerlooms, a Poultry Farm, 2 grocery shops and a medical shop by the name Shradha Medical and income of the family of the petitioner was Rs.60,000/- per month. By the amendment it was sought to be contended that it is only the petitioner who is looking after the affairs of Shradha Medical shop and is earning Rs.10,000/- per month which is his own income. By the amendment it is sought to be contended that from the business of the family of Powerlooms and Grocery shops, the petitioner is earning a sum of Rs.7000/- per month. Therefore, there is no withdrawal of any admission by the amendment. 4 6. Such amendment has been allowed by the impugned order. Evidence is yet to be adduced in the pending application. The impugned order is purely discertionary order. The proceeding under Section 125 of the said Code is in the nature of Civil proceedings. The procedure to be followed in disposal of such application is a summary procedure. In a given case a Court of a Magistrate can permit amendment to the application under Section 125 or to the reply filed to the said application. 7. It is settled law that jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked for correcting each and every incorrect order. In the present case, substantial justice has been done by allowing the amendment. Petitioner will get an opportunity to file supplementary reply to the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the petitioner will get an opportunity to lead evidence. 5 8. Subject to what is observed above, no case for interference is made out and petition is rejected. (A.S.OKA, J.)