[2026:RJ-JP:13156] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5160/2017 Mahendra Sen S/o Gopi Lal, R/o Village Sutra, P.S. Dabi, Distt. Bundi. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through P.P. 2. Smt. Lalita W/o Mahendra Sen S/o Gopi Lal, R/o Village Sutra, P.s. Dabi, Distt. Bundi Presently At Village Devpura C/o Ramdhan S/o Raghunath P.s. Sadar, Distt. Bundi. 3. Lekhraj @ Lakhan S/o Mehandara Sen Through Guardian Mother Smt. Lalita W/o Mahendra Sen S/o Gopi La, R/o Village Sutra, P.s. Dabi, Distt. Bundi Presently At Village Devpura C/o Ramdhan S/o Raghunath P.s. Sadar, Distt. Bundi. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 28/03/2026 1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 16.05.2017 passed by the Family Court, Bundi in Case No.162/2016, by which the application submitted by the petitioner seeking opportunity of cross-examination pf the respondent No.2 has been rejected. 2. None has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner. 3. Considering the fact that the instant petition is lying pending before this Court since 2017, this Court deems it just and proper [2026:RJ-JP:13156] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-5160/2017] to look into the facts of the case and decide the petition on the basis of the grounds taken therein. 4. Contents of the misc. petition indicates that the respondents No.2 and 3 submitted an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner before the Family Court seeking maintenance. It appears that in-spite of granting several opportunities to the petitioner, he has failed to cross-examine the respondent No.2, that is why, his opportunity to cross-examine the respondent No.2 has been closed vide impugned order dated 16.05.2017. 5. In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner was negligent in availing the opportunities provided to him, that is why, cross-examination was not done by him. The sole object of the petitioner was to delay the disposal of the application submitted by the respondents, but looking to the fact that important question of law and facts are involved and in absence of cross-examination of the respondent No.2, the petitioner would not be in a position to put his defence. In the interest of justice, one last and final opportunity is granted to the petitioner for the aforesaid purpose, hence, the instant criminal misc. petition stands disposed of with the following directions and conditions: “(I) The petitioner would pay a cost amount Rs.11,000/- to the respondents within a period of four weeks from today. (II) The petitioner would plant 25 shade bearing trees in his vicinity in public area. The aforesaid process would be carried over by him within a period of four weeks from today. (III) The petitioner would submit the photographs of these shade bearing trees along-with an undertaking before the [2026:RJ-JP:13156] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-5160/2017] Trial Court to show that the Condition No.II imposed by this Court has been duly complied with by him and he would take care of these plants till they grow and get in proper shape and he would submit the actual photographs of trees at the end of every six months in every year till conclusion of the trial. 6. The reasons for passing this present order directing the petitioner to plant 25 shade bearing trees is in the interest of the public at large and for the greater public good. Planting trees as directed above, is one such initiative, which this Court considers to be appropriate, as trees, for as long as they thrive whether for decades or centuries will continuously and silently offer numerous benefits to the city and the surrounding community. Future generations will benefit from a cleaner, fresh and oxygen-rich environment. 7. In case, the petitioner complies with the aforesaid conditions within the above stipulated period, the Family Court would grant one last and final opportunity to the petitioner for the purpose of cross-examination with the respondent by fixing a short fix date. In case, the cross-examination is not completed on the said day, then the Family Court would fix a further short date. In case, the petitioner fails to cross-examine the respondent on the date so fixed by the Family Court, no further opportunity would be granted to the petitioner and the Family Court would be at liberty to proceed with the matter strictly in accordance with law. 8. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that in case, final orders have been passed by the Family Court and the application submitted by the respondents under Section 125 [2026:RJ-JP:13156] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-5160/2017] Cr.P.C. has already been decided, then this order will not have any effect and bearing. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the criminal misc. petition along with all applications (pending, if any) stand disposed of. 10. Let a copy of this order be sent to both the parties along with the Family Court for their information. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/46