The court upheld the trial court's decision to reject the application under Section 311 CrPC and found that the petitioner's intention was to delay the proceedings.

JUDGMENT

1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 CrPC has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 15.12.2021 passed by the Family Court No.3, Jodhpur (for short 'the trial court'), whereby the application preferred on behalf of the petitioner under Section 311 CrPC read with Section 91 CrPC and Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act has been dismissed.

2. In the proceedings initiated at the instance of the respondents under Section 125 CrPC, the respondent No.l has examined herself as witness and the evidence of the petitioner has also been closed.

3. After closer of the evidence of the petitioner, he moved an application before the trial court under Section 311 CrPC read with Section 91 CrPC and Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act with a prayer to summon bank account statements, income-tax returns and several other information with regard to the respondent No.l. It has also been prayed that the respondent No.l may also be recalled so that the petitioner may again cross examine her on some points and her parents may also be called for giving their evidence.

4. The trial court after taking into consideration the contents of the application filed on behalf of the petitioner and after hearing of learned counsel for the parties has held that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that how those documents, sought to be summoned, are relevant for the purpose of deciding the application under Section 125 CrPC. The trial court is also of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances, there is no requirement of recalling the respondent No.l and her parents for giving evidence. The trial court has, therefore, rejected the aforesaid application filed by the petitioner.

5. Being aggrieved with the same, this criminal misc. petition is filed on behalf of the petitioner.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the impugned order, I am of the opinion that the trial court has not committed any illegality while rejecting the aforesaid application filed by the petitioner vide impugned order.

7. Hence, no case for inference in the impugned order passed by the trial court is made out.

8. On a pertinent query, learned counsel for the petitioner has frankly informed this Court that the trial court vide order dated20.11.2019 has directed the petitioner to pay interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.30,000/- per month to the respondent Nos. l and 2. It is also informed that the said order was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by way of S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.558/2020, but the same was disposed of on 24.02.2020 with a direction to the trial court to conclude the proceedings under Section 125 CrPC expeditiously.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has frankly submitted that till date, the petitioner has not paid any interim maintenance to the respondent Nos. l and 2. It appears that the petitioner has moved application under Section 311 CrPC read with Section 91 CrPC and Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act on 12.08.2021 when the matter was fixed for final hearing by the trial court and the aforesaid application remained pending for around four months.

10. From the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the petitioner has moved the said application only with the intention to delay the proceedings pending before the trial court.

11. Taking into consideration the above and facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is therefore dismissed with a cost of Rs. 1,000/-, which the petitioner shall pay to the respondent No.l on the next date of hearing before the trial court.

12. Though, this Court has already issued directions to the trial court to conclude the proceedings under Section 125 CrPC pending before it expeditiously, however, again it is directed that the trial court shall conclude the proceedings initiated at the instance of the respondent Nos. l and 2 expeditiously, preferably