LALIT Vs. VANDANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Dr. Jamal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Satpute, learned counsel for the respondents. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith by consent of learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner feels aggrieved by the order passed by the Family Court, Nagpur, in Petition No. E-11/2008 rejecting the application of the petitioner for amendment of his reply in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) The petitioner is the respondent before the Family Court in a petition for maintenance filed by his wife. The evidence of the applicant/wife was concluded and thereafter the petitioner made an application for amendment of reply. The learned trial Court rejected the application on the ground that the amendment cannot be carried out in view of the amended provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The apprehension of the petitioner, therefore, is that he will not be able to lead evidence in respect of further developments.