HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRL. P.NO.281 of 2009 DATE: 28.10.2010 BETWEEN: Manukonda Venkateswara Rao .. Petitioner And Manukonda Jayalakshmi and others ` .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRL. P.NO.281 of 2009 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to set aside the order dated 04.11.2008 in Crl.M.P.No.2167 of 2008 in Crl.M.P.No.1575 of 2005 in M.C.No.21 of 1986 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kaikalur, Krishna District. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he filed Criminal Petition No.1575 of 2005 for cancellation of maintenance on various grounds mentioned therein and subsequently he filed O.P.No.67 of 2006 on the ground of adultery and on some other grounds and ultimately the O.P. was allowed granting divorce on the ground of adultery. It has been further submitted that by oversight the petitioner did not take specific plea of adultery in the said petition. Therefore, he wanted to amend the pleadings in the petition i.e. Crl.M.P.No.1575 of 2005 by adding the plea of adultery, and accordingly, he filed Crl.M.P.No.2167 of 2008, but the same was dismissed by the learned magistrate. Feeling aggrieved, the present criminal petition is filed. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the decree of divorce passed in O.P.No.67 of 2006 is only an ex- parte decree wherein there is no positive finding as to the adultery of the respondent and he would further submit that there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure to amend the pleadings and therefore, the learned Magistrate had rightly dismissed the amendment petition. It is not possible to agree with the contention urged by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Merely because the decree passed in O.P.No.67 of 2006 is an ex-parte decree, the petitioner is not precluded from taking the plea of adultery in the petition filed a petition cancellation of the maintenance. Similarly the respondent – wife can contest the said petition on the ground that the allegation of adultery against her was not proved before the Court, which passed the decree of divorce on the said ground and the issue would be decided by the Court below in accordance with law. Even though, there is no specific provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure to amend the pleadings the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. being quasi civil the relief sought can be granted. Even otherwise in any criminal case, if some mistake or omission is made by a party due to inadvertence or otherwise it cannot be said that there is no remedy at all to correct or supplement the same. The party can always bring it to the notice of the Court by filing a memo/petition into the Court about the omission or mistake committed by him and the Court has to necessarily take the same in to consideration. Therefore, in the instant case, the petitioner is entitled to take the specific plea of adultery in Crl. M.P.No.1575 of 2005 and the respondent is also entitled to contend that there was no specific finding of adultery in the decree passed by the Court in O.P.No.67 of 2006 and the Court below would decide the issue without being influenced by the findings recorded for the disposal of the criminal petition by this Court. In view of the above, the order dated 04.11.2008 in Crl.M.P.No.2167 of 2008 in Crl.M.P.No.1575 of 2005 in M.C.No.21 of 1986 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kaikalur, Krishna District is set aside and the Crl.M.P.No.2167 of 2008 is allowed. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. ___________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Date: 28.10.2010 kvrm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRL. P.NO.281 of 2009 DATE: 28.10.2010