1. It is the fact that the applicant herein had filed an application below Exh.36 before the trial court for reopening of the right to cross- examine which was closed vide order dated 19-10- 2015. However, as the said application was rejected by the Court, present Criminal Revision Application has been preferred by the applicant herein.
2. I have heard Mr. Nitesh G. Jain, learned advocate for the applicant, Mr. K.L. Pandya, learned APP for the respondent No.1 and Ms.Kruti M. Shah, learned advocate for the respondent Page 1 of 2 HC-NIC Page 1 of 2 Created On Fri May 06 01:07:49 IST 2016 R/CR.RA/130/2016 ORDER No.2.
3. Without entering into the merits of the case, learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that, as such, there appears much more negligence on the part of the applicant herein, but he is simply requesting to reopen the right of cross-examination in the interest of justice by awarding costs.
4. Ms. Shah, learned advocate for the respondent No.2 has, as such, no objection on the said point.
5. Under the circumstances, without entering into the merits of the case, impugned order dated 12- 1-2016 passed below Exh.36 in Criminal Misc. Application No.332 of 2013 by the learned Judge, Family Court, Surat, is quashed and set aside and right of cross-examination is reopened on the applicant's depositing an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) before the trial court towards costs of the respondent No.2-wife. Concerned trial court is directed to release the said amount of costs of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent No.2-wife. This Criminal Revision Application is accordingly disposed of.
(G.B.SHAH, J.) RADHAN Page 2 of 2 HC-NIC Page 2 of 2 Created On Fri May 06 01:07:49 IST 2016