SANJAY KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA Vs. PRATIBHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved by the order dated 07.11.2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rehli in MJC No. 60/2005 allowing the amendment application filed by the non-applicant/respondent under Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) It is not in dispute that the applicant and the nonapplicant/ respondent are husband and wife. Their marriage was solemnised in the year 2003. In the proceedings under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, on their mutual consent, decree of divorce was granted vide order dated 06.04.2005. On the basis of the compromise arrived between them, Rs. 50,000/- as has been paid to the respondent/non-applicant as permanent alimony.

(3.) Learned Family Court found that permanent alimony has been received by the respondent, even then the proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is still pending against the applicant in which the respondent/non-applicant has filed an amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. Applicant submits that while seeking various amendments, the respondent/non-applicant tried to substantially change her case. Vide order dated 07.11.2019, learned trial Court has wrongly allowed her amendment application in the proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The impugned order is patently illegal and without jurisdiction, hence, deserves to be set aside.