1 WP 656.11.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 656 OF 2011 Mr. Iqbal Abdul Sattar Aga. ... Petitioner. V/s. Mrs. Afrin Iqbal Aga and Anr. ... Respondents. Mr. Sanjay Bhatia for the Petitioner. Ms. Preeti Gada with Ms. Rupali V. Naik for the Respondents. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 7th APRIL 2011. P.C. :- The Respondent herein has filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 107 of 2008 so as to seek enhancement of order of maintenance granted under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The evidence on behalf of the Respondent was over on 26th November 2010. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed application below Exhibit 40 so as to recall Respondent under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. 2. I have heard learned Counsels on both sides at the stage of admission. 2 WP 656.11.sxw 3 Respondent wanted the Petitioner to produce certain documents throwing light on her income and according to the Petitioner, the Respondent had not done so. 4. I have perused the text of the cross-examination of the present Respondent and on reading of the same, it is apparent that the Petitioner has not asked specific questions calling upon the Respondent to produce certain documents and the Petitioner has not insisted on production of the said document by the Respondent and he allowed his cross-examination to be completed. 5. According to the Petitioner, the Respondent has not placed before the Court correct documents as regards her income. After having perused the impugned order dated 4th February 2011 by which application at Exhibit 40 was disposed of, it is clear that the Petitioner’s application for recalling was improper and has been rightly rejected. It is required to be noted that the Petitioner has yet not stepped into witness box. If this be so, the Petitioner can place appropriate evidence on record to show correct figure of income as well as financial position of the Respondent. 6. In my view, there is no need to recall the witness. In view of this, the Petition will have to be rejected at the stage of admission. No interference is required in the impugned order. 3 WP 656.11.sxw 7. Hence, following order is passed :- (i) The Petition is rejected at the stage of admission. (ii) There shall be no order as to costs. It was noted that a part of the cross-examination was conducted on 15th July 2010 and the next cross-examination was conducted on 26th November 2010 i.e. after a gap of about 4 months, I do not want to go into question as to why the cross-examination could not be over immediately. It appears that the matter is getting prolonged. The learned Judge has to consider whether the Respondent should get enhanced maintenance. Hence, it is desirable that the Misc. Application pending before the learned Judge viz. Misc. Application No. 107 of 2008 should get disposed of as expeditiously as possible. Surely, the learned Judge will have to give reasonable opportunity to the Defendant to produce necessary material. However, the learned Judge shall exercise reasonable control over the postponement of the matter from time to time. It is hereby ordered that Misc. Application No. 107 of 2008 be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and in any case by 31st August 2011. (R.Y. GANOO, J.)