{1} Cri. Application No.3924/2010 drp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3924 OF 2010 Radhakishan Tukaram Kasle APPLICANT Age-44 years, Occ-Nil R/o Kaslewadi, Post-Halki Tq-Shiruranantpal Dist-Latur VERSUS Sunita Radhakishan Kasle RESPONDENT Age-42 years, Occ-Household R/o C/o Madhav Ganpati Pandge Shelu, Tq-Ausa, Dist-Latur ....... Mr.S.N.Morampalle, Advocate for the applicant Mr.A.S.Deshpande, Advocate for the respondent ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 16 th September 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, heard finally at the stage of admission. {2} Cri. Application No.3924/2010 2. By the present application, the applicant, original respondent No.1 in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.8/2008 filed by present respondent under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act before JMFC, Ausa, has challenged the order dated 03.09.2010 passed below Exhibit-53. 3. Admittedly, Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 8/2008 is filed by the present respondent against petitioner and others in which the opponents have appeared. The application was thereafter listed for evidence. On 15.07.2010 evidence of present respondent came to be recorded, however on that day neither the petitioner nor his counsel was present in the Court and, therefore, an order of “No Cross” came to be passed. The petitioner and others, by filing application at Exhibit-53, requested to recall the order of “No Cross” and to allow them to cross examine the respondent. Vide the impugned order the trial court partly allowed the application thereby rejecting the same to the extent of present petition on the ground that the petitioner has failed to deposit the amount of interim maintenance and hence his defence is struck down. There is no provision to struck off the defence under the {3} Cri. Application No.3924/2010 provisions of the Domestic Violence Act. So far as recovery of interim maintenance is concerned, the respondent/wife is at liberty to file necessary execution proceedings. Secondly, the petitioner and others have engaged one and the same advocate in the trial court, however the application has been rejected only to the extent of the present applicant, which itself is wrong. If the trial court intends to reject the application then it should have been rejected in entirity as one and the same advocate is appearing for the opponents. Thus, the trial court has committed an error in rejecting the application only to the extent of the present applicant, which is not permissible in law. Considering this aspect, the impugned order, which is against the provisions of law, requires to be quashed and set aside. 4. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute as indicated above. The application is allowed on the condition of cost of Rs.1000/- to be deposited by the applicant in the trial court within a period of one week failing which the this order would automatically stand as cancelled. The parties are directed to {4} Cri. Application No.3924/2010 appear in the trial court on 21.09.2011. Learned counsel for respective parties undertake to communicate this order to their respective clients. Parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B11/criapln3924-10