RAVINDRA RAMCHANDRA TINGARE Vs. ASHWINI RAVINDRA TINGARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent.

(2.) The petitioner husband, who is the party opponent to an application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the said Code of 1973) filed by the 1st respondent- wife and the minor child, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for challenging the order by which the wife and the child have been permitted to claim maintenance of Rs. 3000/- per month each. In the application under section 125 of the said Code of 1973 filed by the wife and the minor child, initially maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month each was prayed for. An application was made for amendment of the said application. In the application for amendment, it was contended that during the pendency of the application it was learnt that the petitioner husband has acquired a Maruti Alto Car. The prayer in the application for amendment was that the wife and the minor child be granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3000/-per month. The said application has been allowed by the impugned order and the 1 st respondent has been permitted to amend the prayer in the application under section 125 of the said Code of 1973. The said order permitting amendment has been challenged by this petition.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-husband pointed out that the application for amendment is purportedly made by invoking provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. He submitted that obviously the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 were not applicable to an application filed under section 125 of the said Code of 1973. He submitted that the learned Magistrate has taken erroneous view of the matter by allowing the amendment after holding that the proceedings under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code are quasi- civil in nature. He submitted that there are decisions of this Court holding that there is no provision under the said Code of 1973 permitting amendment to be carried out to the pleadings. He submitted that the impugned order is completely illegal and deserves to be set aside.