Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) The petitioner, who is defendant in M.P.Case No.38 of 2004 is aggrieved of order dated 03.02.2012 by which his evidence has been closed.
(2.) The respondent-wife filed a case under section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure for direction upon her husband to pay adequate maintenance to her. The trial court by an order dated 06.07.2007 granted Rs.1,500/- as maintenance pendente lite. Against this order the petitioner came to this Court in Cr.Revision No.694 of 2007 and by an order dated 13.02.2008 the matter was remanded back to the trial court with liberty to the parties to adduce evidence on the point of income of the husband. After the remand the defendant did not lead evidence and consequently, his evidence was closed by an order dated 03.02.2012. Proceeding in M.P. Case No.38 of 2004 would disclose that more than sufficient opportunities were afforded to the defendant-husband to put his evidence still, he did not lead evidence in the suit and accordingly, his evidence was closed. Section 125 Cr.PC provides that if any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife who is unable to maintain herself, monthly allowance shall be payable to the wife.
(3.) In the aforesaid facts, finding no infirmity in the impugned order dated 03.02.2012, the writ petition is dismissed.;