drp {1} CWP No.29/201 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.29 OF 2011 Rahul Ashok Muley PETITIONER VERSUS Rekha Kankarbai Kale & others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.P.S.Paranjape, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.N.R.Shaikh, APP for respondent State Mr.R.A.Tambe, Advocate for the respondent ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 24th March 2011 PER COURT: 1. The petitioner, by this petition, has prayed for quashing of the order dated 01.12.2010 passed by JMFC, Shrirampur, below Exhibit-49 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.146/2010, filed by respondent No.1 under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 (for short Domestic Violence Act). 2. Heard. Certain undisputed facts are stated as follows- Miscellaneous Application No.146/2010 is filed by respondent No.1 against the petitioner for maintenance and return of Stridhan property. The petitioner appeared in the said drp {2} CWP No.29/201 proceedings and filed written statement on 27th February 2009. The respondent No.1, in the application, has averted that her marriage has taken place with the petitioner as per the Hindu rites and customs, in presence of elderly persons of the family at Kukana. The petitioner denied the allegation of marriage with respondent No.1. After framing of issues the parties are put to trial. During the cross examination of respondent No.1, on 15.04.2009, she has given the date of alleged marriage as 26th March 2002. Thereafter, her cross examination was over and some more witnesses were also examined on behalf of present respondent No. 1. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that for the first time, that too in the cross examination of the present respondent No.1, the alleged date of marriage has came on record, which is not pleaded in the petition. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, it has revealed from the record that on the alleged date of marriage the petitioner was hospitalized. It is further urged that as it is only mentioned in the application that she is married with petitioner and the petitioner has denied the same in the written statement, but now as the specific date of marriage has came on record and as at the relevant time the petitioner was hospitalized, as it was necessary to amend the written statement, therefore, application Exhibit-49 was preferred, which came to be rejected, hence, by way of abandon precaution, the petitioner is before this Court. drp {3} CWP No.29/201 4. Proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act are admittedly, like that of semi civil proceedings and hence the rule of pleadings are applicable to the said proceedings. Law of pleadings enumerates that facts to be pleaded and evidence need not be. The law further enumerates that the parties to lead evidence on the facts pleaded only. The pleadings of the parties before the trial court disclose that respondent No.1, claimed to be married with the petitioner. So also in the written statement filed by petitioner, he has denied the allegation of marriage. The date of marriage came on record during the cross examination, is a matter of evidence. The claim of the petitioner that at the material time, he was admitted in the hospital is also a matter of evidence. 5. In the premise, I do not find any fault with the order impugned, however, I think it appropriate to clarify that the petitioner is at liberty to lead evidence in respect that he was hospitalized and was taking treatment in the hospital on the alleged date of marriage. I expect that the trial court would, without hesitation, offer this opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence in that behalf. As the petition is sans merits, the same is dismissed with the aforesaid clarification. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/A11/cwp29-11