:1:

IN

THE

HIGH

COURT

OF

JUDICATURE

AT

BOMBAY

APPELLATE

JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL

APPLICATION

NO.

2454

OF

2007

Shrenik Dasharath Chavan

..Applicant

Vs.

1. Ashwini Shrenik Chavan and ors.

..Respondents

Mr.

Dasharath

Chavan

i/by

S.D.

Chavan

-

in

-

person.

Mr.

D.P.

Adsule,

APP

for

State.

CORAM:

CORAM:

CORAM:

B.H.

B.H.

B.H.

MARLAPALLE,

J.

MARLAPALLE,

J.

MARLAPALLE,

J.

Date

Date

Date

:

:

:

September

28,

2007.

September

28,

2007.

September

28,

2007.

P.C.:

P.C.:

P.C.:

1.

Heard Mr. Dasharath Chavan as party-in-person

appearing

for

the

applicant

who

is

his

son.

Leave

to

amend

to

delete

respondent

nos.2

&

3.

Amendment

be

carried

out

forthwith.

In

P.E.No.580

of

2006

the

claim

made

by

the

present

respondent-wife

is

for

maintenance

under

Section

125

of

Cr.P.C.

The

husband

had

submitted

an

application

in

the

Family

Court

on

8/2/2007

seeking

permission

that

his

father

would

defend

him

in

the

trial

of

the

case

and

by

an

order

dated

22/2/2007

the

application

was

allowed

and

consequently,

Mr.Dasharath

Chavan

started

corss-examination

of

the

respondent

no.1-wife

(original

applicant).

It

appears

that

the

examination-in-chief

of

the

applicant-wife

was

started

:2:

on

31/5/2007

and

on

14/6/2007

Mr.Dasharath

Chavan

started

further

cross-examination

of

the

applicant-wife.

In

the

course

of

the

cross-examination

he

asked

the

applicant-wife

a

question

regarding

the

whereabouts

of

the

ornaments

given

by

her

father

and

this

question

was

found

to

be

irrelevant

by

the

learned

Judge

of

the

Family

Court.

It

appears

the

Family

Court

found

that

Mr.Dasharath

Chavan

was

asking

such

irrelevant

questions

in

the

cross-examination

and

the

court

was

also

not

happy

with

the

manner

in

which

the

cross-examination

was

continued.

Therefore,

on

14/6/2007

the

respondent-husband was directed to engage an Advocate

or to cross-examine the applicant-wife himself.

2.

Being aggrieved by this order, the husband

preferred

an

application

for

transfer

of

the

case

to

any

other

Family

Court

at

Pune

and

the

learned

Principal

Judge

by

her

order

dated

30/6/2007

rejected

the

said

application

holding

that

the

power

to

transfer

the

case

from

one

Family

Court

to

another,

except on the administrative grounds, vests with the

High Court.

:3:

3.

Though I am satisfied that the prayer for

transfer

of

the

case

from

Court

No.2

to

any

other

Family

Court

at

Pune

is

devoid

of

merits,

at

the

same

time,

the

respondent-husband

cannot

be

forced

to

engage

an

Advocate

or

to

conduct

the

cross-examination

by

himself

when

his

application

for

leave

to

defend

his

side

by

his

father

was

allowed

by

the

Family

Court.

The

claim

before

the

Family

Court

at

the

instance

of

the

wife

is

for

maintenance

under

Section

125

of

Cr.P.C.

and

the

Family

Court

was

justified

in

pointing

out

to

Mr.Dasharath

Chavan

that

the

questions

in

the

cross-examination

were

irrelevant.

But

so

long

as

the

defence

representative

continues

the

cross-examination

on

the

premises

of

defending

the

application

under

Section

125

of

Cr.P.C.,

it

would

not

be in keeping with the requirement of justice that he