JUDGMENT :

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent no.1-State and learned advocate Mr. Kumar H. Trivedi waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondents No.2 to 6.

2. By way of present application, applicant has requested to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 20.04.2022 passed below Ex. 22 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 103 of 2020 by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar and allow Ex. 22 application giving opportunity of cross examination.

3. Brief facts of the present case are as under:

3.1 That applicant and the respondent no.2 are the husband and wife and out of their wedlock, three daughters and one son are born. Thereafter, due to matrimonial disputes, respondent no.2 filed an application for maintenance being Criminal Misc. Application No. 103 of 2020. After filing such application, notice was issued to the applicant herein and applicant herein has filed his reply in the month of June 2021. In the said matter, respondent no.2 wife submitted her examination in chief on affidavit on 25.08.2021 and thereafter matter was kept on 20.09.2021 and on that date, due to absence of applicant as well as his learned advocate, the Court below has, closed the right of cross examination of the applicant and matter was kept for further evidence of the respondent no.2-wife on 13.10.2021. Thereafter, on 13.10.2021, court below was not available therefore, the matter was adjourned to 16.11.2021. On 16.11.2021, since the learned advocate for the respondent no.2-wife was not present, the matter was adjourned for further evidence of t respondent no.2-wife on 03.12.2021, On 03.12.2021, again the learned advocate of the respondent no.2-wife was not present and therefore, the matter was adjourned to 16.12.2021. On 16.12.2021, again learned advocate of the respondent no.2-wife was not present and therefore, the matter was adjourned on 06.01.2022. On 06.01.2022, the advocate of the respondent no.2-wife asked for time which was rejected and, on that day, learned advocate of the present applicant came to know that the right of cross-examination has been closed and therefore, he moved an application Exh.22 to reopen the right of cross-examination and on the said application, the order was passed to fix an application for hearing and matter was adjourned on 01.02.2022. That, on 01.02.2022, the Court was hearing virtually and therefore, the matter was adjourned to 16.02.2022 to file reply below Exh.22. On 16.02.2022, again the hearing was virtual and therefore, the matter was kept on 16.03.2022 to file reply below Exh.22. That, on 16.03.2022, the hearing below Exh.22 was conducted, and matter was kept for order below Exh.22 on 04.04.2022. That, on 04.04.2022, the court below was busy with another pronouncement of judgment and therefore, next date was given on 20.04.2022 for pronouncement of the judgment below Exh.22. That, 20.04.2022, the Court below has passed an impugned order whereby, it has opened the right of cross-examination on condition that the applicant has to pay Rs.3,000/-per month maintenance to the respondent no.2-wife and Rs.1,500/-per month to each child ie. respondents no.3 to 6 and thereby, total Rs.9,000/-per month interim maintenance was awarded and upon payment of that only, the petitioner is permitted to cross-examination the wife. Thus, the applicant has challenged the said order before this court by way of present revision application.

4. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

5. It was submitted by learned advocate for the applicant that the impugned judgment and order is against the law, unjust, arbitrary, illegal and uncalled for in the facts and circumstances of the case. That the Court below has completely erred in closing the right of cross-examination of the present applicant on the very next day of tendering the examination in chief by the respondent wife. That, there is no justi