1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 174 OF 2010 Sau. Sarika W/o Ravindra Jadhav ..PETITIONER -VERSUS- Ravindra S/o Totaram Jadhav ..RESPONDENT ......... Mr. P.B. Patil, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Ujwal S. Patil, Advocate for respondent. ........ (CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) DATE : 21 st October, 2010. PER COURT : 1. By this Petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 14.12.2009 rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Chalisgaon, on application (Exhibit-47), filed by the petitioner in the proceedings of Criminal Misc. Application No. 340/2006, for separate maintenance allowance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. The petitioner claimed to be the wife of the respondent. She alleged that she was maltreated by him and that though he has got sufficient means, yet has neglected and refused to maintain her. Consequently, she sought separate maintenance allowance from him. It is not necessary to elaborately set out the rival contentions. 2 3. Suffice it to say that during pendency of the application, after the examination of the petitioner and her witnesses, she filed application (Exhibit-47) seeking amendment to the application. 4. The amendment application purports to show that the petitioner sought addition of paragraph No. 3-A in her application. The tenor of the amendment is to bring on record the subsequent events regarding the settlement of the dispute on 17.02.2008 and execution of the Kararnama on stamp paper of Rs. 100/- by the respondent. She wanted to allege that he had taken away her for the purpose of cohabitation under the terms of the agreement of settlement but again she was ill-treated by himself and his relatives. She further wanted to assert that on 06.04.2008 she was assaulted after giving abuses and on next day i.e. on 07.04.2008, she was driven out of the matrimonial home and since then she was residing with her parents. 5. The learned Magistrate rejected the amendment application for the reason that if such amendment is permitted, then it would require to adduce further evidence by giving further opportunity to the respondent to reply the amended pleadings. The 3 learned Magistrate further noticed that the petitioner did not seek any leave to adduce further evidence after the amendment and as such mere amendment may not be sufficient without consideration of the question of leave to adduce evidence. Consequently, the application for amendment came to be dismissed. 6. The Petition is being finally disposed of at the admission stage, in view of short question involved therein. 7. Mr. P.B. Patil seeks reliance on certain observations in “Chandrakant Bhanudas Labde V/s Shobhabai Chandrakant Labde" {1987(1) Mh.L.R. 153} and "Union of India V/s Rajkumar Agarwal" { 2006(6) Mh.L.J. 765}. The second authority relied upon by him is in the context of the civil matter wherein this Court observed that the trial Court can take cognizance of the developments which occur during pendency of the suit and the amendment can be permitted when such subsequent developments require adjudication of certain issues in the same suit or the proceedings. In Chandrakant Bhanudas Labde (supra), a Single Bench of this Court held that amendment of the pleadings as provided under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code can be made applicable mutatis mutandis to the proceedings under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It 4 is of common knowledge that the proceedings under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code are criminal and quasi-civil in nature. There can not be any duality of opinion that in an appropriate case that the amendment can be allowed in the context of proceedings under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, if the trial Court comes to the conclusion that such amendment is necessary for the purpose of adjudication of the lis between the parties. 8. The question involved in the petition is whether the amendment sought to be introduced by the petitioner is essential for the purpose of final and effective adjudication of the issues involved in the proceedings under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. One can not be oblivious of the fact that the summary procedure is contemplated and such proceedings are required to be determined expeditiously. Though there is civil remedy available under the provisions of Section 18 of the Hindu Marriage Act, yet such proceedings are also made available in order to avoid delay in grant of maintenance to the deserving wives. The provision is indicative of antipathy towards vagrancy. The subsequent development in the present case only shows another instance of the act of cruelty on the part of the respondent. The basic foundation of the application is already made out by the 5 petitioner in her application and based on such allegations, her claim can be determined. She is at liberty to show and confront with the document of compromise to the respondent during the course of cross examination of the respondent, in order to bring on surface of record such subsequent development, which is in continuation of the original cause of action. There is no need to prove the subsequent development because the cause of action for the application had occurred earlier and on the same cause of action, she sought separate maintenance allowance. The subsequent development is only incidental in nature, in addition to the previous pleadings and would reflect only on the conduct of the parties. 9. Under the circumstances and when alternate course is available to the petitioner, the impugned order can not be faulted with. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR) JUDGE gas/criwp174.10