1 Cri.Appl.No.1639 of 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1639 OF 2004 Ananda @ Dada Yeshwant Madake, Age-33 years, Occu-Agriculture, and Service, R/o.Shrigonda (Saprewadi), Tq.Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar APPLICANT VERSUS Anita Ananda @ Dada Madake, Age-26 years, Occu-Nil, R/o.Saprewadi, Shrigonda, Tq.Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar RESPONDENT Mr.Vijay Jagtap h/f.Mr.V.D.Sapkal, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr.Ashok V.Ghuge h/f. Mr.S.S.Jadhava, learned counsel for respondent. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 07/03/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. By the present application, applicant has approached this Court to quash and set aside the order passed below Exh.55 by J.M.F.C. Shrigonda in Misc. Cri.Appl.No.19/2002 filed by the respondent/opponent for maintenance u/s. 125 of The Cr.P.C. 2. Rule was issued in this matter on 01/09/2004. 2 Cri.Appl.No.1639 of 2004 3. It appears that after evidence of respondent was over before the Trial Court, the applicant herein has also lead certain evidence. After that evidence was over, an application was moved by the respondent herein at Exh.55, requesting the Court to allow her to lead the evidence in view of the facts brought on record by the applicant herein. Those facts are in respect of alleged second marriage of the present applicant. By way of order dated 12/07/2004 passed below Exh.55, Trial Court has allowed that application, which is impugned in this application before this Court u/s. 482 of The Cr.P.C. 2. It appears that after this application was filed, Criminal Application No.2469/2004 was filed for stay to the proceedings before the Trial Court. Record shows that vide order dated 04/11/2004, the application for stay to the proceedings before the Trial Court was rejected by this Court. The original application before the learned J.M.F.C. Shrigonda is an application for maintenance u/s. 125 of The Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent herein. As there is no stay to the proceedings, the application might have disposed of way back, as the application for stay was rejected about 7 years back. Another aspect is that in view of the facts brought on record by the applicant herein who was opponent before the Trial Court, an application was moved to rebut the facts brought on record, and that application was allowed by the Learned Magistrate for the reasoned order, in which I do not find any perversity, then as the application to lead the evidence was allowed by the Court and the reasoning recorded by the 3 Cri.Appl.No.1639 of 2004 Trial Court are not perverse in the opinion of this Court, this application remains devoid of any merits, stands rejected and disposed of accordingly. 3. Rule discharged. R & P be sent back immediately to the Court concerned. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/MAR. 2011/cri.appl.1639-04