Bombay High Court
Nadeem Ahmad Sk. Ayyub vs Rubina Parveen W/O. Nadeem Ahmad on 20 February, 2018
Author: S.B. Shukre
Bench: S.B. Shukre
J-cwp1070.17.odt 1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No.1070 OF 2017
Nadeem Ahmad Sk. Ayyub,
Aged about 30 years,
Occupation : Nil,
R/o. Murtizapur, Telephone Colony,
Near Station Road, Tahsil Murtizapur,
District Akola. : PETITIONER
...VERSUS...
Rubina Parveen w/o. Nadeem Ahmad,
Aged about 26 years,
Occupation : Household,
R/o. C/o. Sayed Zakir Sayed Samiroddin,
R/o. Akola, Muzaffar Nagar, Near Lakadganj,
Tahsil and District Akola. : RESPONDENT
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Shri S.N. Bhattad, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Sk. Jagirdar, Advocate for the Respondent.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE, J.
th
DATE : 20
FEBRUARY, 2018.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. Heard finally by consent.
::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2018 01:40:23 ::: J-cwp1070.17.odt 2/3
4. This writ petition questions legality and correctness of the order dated 6.11.2017 whereby one amendment was allowed to be made while other amendment was refused to be made by the learned Judge of the Family Court. The amendment permitted by the learned Judge is about a pleading that the respondent is in the habit of filing of false and fabricated complaints and applications in the Court and abusing process of law. The refused amendment relates to an averment that the respondent is earning about Rs.15,000/- per month by doing stitching work and giving Mendi (Henna) Training. The trial Court has reasoned that the refused amendment, if allowed, would prejudice the case of the respondent and that it was not proposed at appropriate stage.
5. Presently, the case is pending for cross-examination of the respondent. The cross-examination is yet to commence. Therefore, the reason that if the refused amendment is allowed, it would result in prejudically affecting the case of the respondent appears to be flawed. When the evidence itself is not over, it cannot be said that the opportunity to give appropriate answers has been lost. On the contrary, if proposed amendment is allowed, it would assist the Court in doing substantive justice between the parties. The respondent can be given an opportunity to file a reply to the proposed amendment and also lead additional evidence.
6. In view of above, I find that the impugned order cannot be ::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2018 01:40:23 ::: J-cwp1070.17.odt 3/3 sustained in the eye of law.
7. Writ petition is allowed.
8. The impugned order is quashed and set aside.
9. Proposed amendment to paragraph 10 (page 42 of the paper book) is allowed.
10. It be carried out within one week from the next date of appearance of the parties before the trial Court.
11. The respondent is permitted to file her reply to the amendment so carried out. She is also permitted to lead additional evidence.
12. The petitioner shall be given an opportunity to cross-examine the respondent and her witnesses, if any, and similar opportunity shall also be afforded to the respondent.
13. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
14. Criminal Writ Petition is disposed of.
JUDGE okMksns ::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2018 01:40:23 :::