1. The present petitioner was a respondent in Crl.Misc.No.778/2017 pending on the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Basavakalyan. The present respondent was the petitioner therein. The said petition was filed by the present respondent under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In the cross examination of PW.1, it appears that some questions were put by the learned counsel for the present petitioner, as respondent in the said petition, pertaining to his alleged maintenance petition against Sri Dayanand, Sri Sandeep and Sri Pradeep, who are said to be the children of the present petitioner. The Trial Court rejected those questions observing that they were not relevant to the petition before it. Since the respondent therein (petitioner herein) did not proceed further in the cross-examination of PW.1, the Trial Court also took that there was no further cross-examination of PW.1. Aggrieved by the said observation made by the Trial Court on 08.08.2019, the respondent in the Trial Court has preferred the present writ petition. The respondent herein is represented by her counsel.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the present petitioner himself, who is without any maintenance, has filed a maintenance petition against his children, he intended to ask some questions in that regard, however, the Trial Court was not justified in over-ruling those questions.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that admittedly the present respondent was not a party in the alleged maintenance petition said to have been filed by the present petitioner against his children. As such, when she is not a party in the said petition, she cannot speak anything about those questions in her cross-examination in Crl.Misc.No.778/2017. As such, rightly the Trial Court has over-ruled those questions. He further submits that however, if the present petitioner as respondent in Crl.Misc.No.778/2017 intends to proceed further in the cross-examination of PW.1 and cross-examines PW.1 confining to her petition, then he would have no objection in recalling the said witness on the application to be made by the respondent therein.

4. I find some force in the argument of learned counsel for the respondent. When admittedly, the present respondent is said to be not a party in the alleged maintenance petition said to have been filed by the present petitioner against his children, the present respondent as PW.1 in Crl.Misc.No.778/2017 cannot speak anything about those aspects, which are not to her knowledge. Further, the scope of Crl.Misc.No.778/2017 was also very limited being a petition for maintenance by the present respondent against the present petitioner. If at all the present petitioner as a respondent in Crl.Misc.No.778/2017 intended to bring to the notice of the Court about he filing similar maintenance petition against his children, then he would have other lawful means to bring the same to the notice of the concerned Court, but, not necessarily by posing questions to PW.1, who admittedly was not said to be connected to those alleged maintenance petitions. Hence, I do not find any infirmly, illegality or impropriety in the observations made by the Trial Court by over-ruling the questions put to PW.1 in her cross-examination by the respondent therein. However, recalling PW.1 for further crossexamination by the respondent therein would be to the discretion of the said Court upon an application filed, if any, by the respondent therein. At that juncture, the submission made on behalf of the respondent herein that such an application made, if any, by the respondent therein would not be opposed by them, also would be considered by the Trial Court.

5. With these observations, the writ petition stands dismissed.