wp314.11 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 314 OF 2011 Rajesh s/o Balaji Ambhore ...Petitioner Versus Vimal Rajesh Ambhore ...Respondent ..... Mr. Ajit Kadethankar, advocate for the petitioner ..... CORAM: A.V. POTDAR, J. DATED: 27TH APRIL, 2011 PER COURT:- 1 By the present writ petition, the petitioner husband approached this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India r.w. Section 482 of Cr.P.C. questioning the correctness of order passed by the learned J.M.F.C. Basmat in Misc. criminal application No. 73 of 2010 thereby rejecting the application at Exh.25 turning down the prayer of the petitioner, who is respondent before the trial court, to refer the photograph produced by the respondent herein alongwith the list before the trial court. 2 Considering the submissions across the bar, it is not under wp314.11 -2- dispute that the respondent has filed a maintenance proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. against the present petitioner before the learned J.M.F.C. Basmat bearing Misc. Criminal application No. 73 of 2010. It further appears that alongwith the list, the respondent produced one photograph alleging to be a proof of marriage took place between respondent and the petitioner. It further appears that respondent initially failed to produce negative of the said photograph or to lead cogent evidence to prove the photograph. Thereafter, the petitioner who is opponent before the trial court filed an application to refer the said photograph to the expert for his report. While rejecting the said application Exh.25 moved by the petitioner, the learned trial court has observed that, “the photograph produced by applicant at Exh.22 serial No.1 is not proved in evidence, it will not be taken into consideration to decide the case on merit. So, in such circumstance it not proper to send the photograph to expert for opinion as it is no part of evidence and is not taken into consideration to decide the case.” 3 Thus, while recording the findings in uncertain words, the learned trial court has observed that the photograph is not proved as required to be proved in law. The learned trial court has also recorded a finding that the document is not proved. The learned trial court has further observed that this photograph will not be read in evidence and it will not be taken into consideration to decide the case on merit. wp314.11 -3- Thus, while rejecting the application the learned Magistrate has observed that as the document is not proved as required to be proved in law, it will not read in evidence. In my view, when the document is not exhibited it will not cause prejudice to the rights of the petitioner before lower court. The scope of the inquiry for proceeding under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is very limited. By entertaining such type of applications this court do not want to encourage the hopes of litigant to expand the scope of enquiry. 4 In the above circumstances, petition sans any merit. Rejected. ( A.V. POTDAR. J.) rlj/