1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Criminal Writ Petition No.121 of 2011 [Aminur Rahman Mateenur Vs. State of Mah. and another] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. A.B. Mirza, Adv., for the petitioner. Mr. R.S. Nayak, APP for respondent no.1. Mr. M.G. Sarda, Adv., for respondent no.2. ---- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 18th March, 2011. 1. This is a petition by husband under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. He is challenging the order dated 30th November, 2010, passed by the Family Court, Akola, restoring the application [E. Petition No. 186 of 2009], and order passed in the same Petition [E-Petition No. 186/2009] overruling the petitioner s objection to maintainability of proceedings as petition under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, in the background of filing a petition under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 2. Heard Adv. Mr. A.B. Mirza for the petitioner, learned APP Mr. R.S. Nayak for the respondent no.1, and learned Adv. Mr. M.G. 2 Sarda, for respondent no.2. 3. Learned Adv., for the petitioner is unable to agitate the question as to jurisdiction or error of law, if any, creeping in the impugned orders. 4. Therefore, no indulgence is necessary. 5. At this stage, learned Adv., for the petitioner pointed out that as the petitioner has failed to cross-examine the respondent no.2, the learned Family Court had ordered no cross , and now the case is fixed for hearing on 19th March, 2011. 6. The learned Adv., for respondent no.2 concedes that in the event,the petitioner wants to cross-examine the applicant, she [present respondent no.2] shall remain available, and will not raise objection if a request for leave to cross-examine is made. 7. Considering this submission and concession, and in the light of discussion herein above, the petition is dismissed. Hamdast is allowed. Judge |Hedau| 3