JUDGMENT - D.N. MEHTA, J.:---This Criminal Revision Application has been filed by the petitioner Chandrakant Bhanudas Labde for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shrirampur, dated 11-11-1982 whereunder the learned Judicial Magistrate permitted the amendment of an application filed under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Shobha Chandrakant Labde, who is respondent No. 1 herein and who has not appeared though served, filed an application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against her husband Chandrakant Bhanudas Labde, the petitioner herein, praying for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month. The learned Judicial Magistrate commenced the hearing of the petition and respondent No. 1 (who will hereinafter be referred to as "the wife") examined herself and one other witness on her behalf. At this stage, the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the wife realised that an important averment which should have found place in the application had not been made through oversight or negligence. The averment was that "the petitioner was unable to maintain herself and had no source of Income." 3. On 8-10-1982 an application for amendment of the application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was made before the learned Judicial Magistrate by the Advocate of the wife. The Advocate for the husband, the petitioner herein, opposed the application. The learned Magistrate after hearing both the parties, delivered an elaborate order granting leave to the wife to amend her application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. The petitioner-husband has now approached this Court in revision impugning the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate dated 11-11-1982. 5. Shri Joshi, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has submitted that the application for amendment ought not to have been allowed by the learned Magistrate for various reasons. Shri Joshi submitted that the Code of Criminal Procedure did not contain any provision for amendment of pleadings as provided in the Code of Civil Procedure and, therefore, it must be concluded that a Criminal Court had no right to grant leave to amend pleadings. 6. Shri Joshi submitted that the Code of Criminal Procedure did not contain any provision for amendment of pleadings as provided in the Code of Civil Procedure and, therefore, it must be concluded that a Criminal Court had no right to grant leave to amend pleadings. 6. Shri Joshi next impugned the order granting amendment on the ground that the application had been made at a very late stage, i.e. after the examination of the petitioner and one of the witnesses. Therefore, by permitting the amendment grave prejudice would be caused to the case of the husband. 7. Lastly, Shri Joshi criticised the order granting leave to amend on the ground that by permitting the amendment, the wife was permitted to set up a new or a fresh cause of action and this ought not to be permitted by the Court. 8. Now it is true, as submitted by Shri Joshi, that the Code of Criminal Procedure does not provide for any procedure for the amendment of any pleadings as is provided for under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. One of the reasons for the Legislature not providing for the amendment of pleadings in the Code of Criminal Procedure appears to be that in criminal proceedings there are no formal pleadings like the plaint and the written statement. In criminal cases the proceedings may be initiated by a complaint or by the First Information Report. If any fact was found missing in a complaint or the First Information Report, then parties had a right to file a supplementary complaint or the First Information Report. In any event, the proceedings under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are in the nature of Civil Procedure. If any fact was found missing in a complaint or the First Information Report, then parties had a right to file a supplementary complaint or the First Information Report. In any event, the proceedings under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are in the nature of Civil Procedure. Support for this proposition can be found in the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of (Jagir Kaur v. Jaswant Singh)1, reported in A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1521 :--- "The proceedings under this section are in the nature of civil proceedings, the remedy is a summary one and the person seeking that remedy, as we have pointed out, is ordinarily a helpless person." If, as pointed out by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, the proceedings under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are in the nature of civil proceedings, then I see no reason why the ingredients of Order VI, Rule 17 ought not to be imported into the proceedings under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 9. Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure is in the following terms: "The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or to amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties." 10. It is now well settled that all amendments ought to be permitted unless they set up a fresh cause of action or the amendment, it permitted, would cause prejudice to the case of the opposite party. 11. Now, in the instant case, the wife in her application had failed to mention that she was unable to maintain herself and that she had no source of income. Section 125 sub-section (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides inter alia, that if any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife who is unable to maintain herself, then a Magistrate of the First Class upon proof of such neglect or refusal order such person to make a monthly allowance for maintenance of that wife. One of the essential ingredients, therefore, of an application under section 125 sub-section (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that the wife must be unable to maintain herself. One of the essential ingredients, therefore, of an application under section 125 sub-section (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that the wife must be unable to maintain herself. If such an averment is absent in her application, then the application is liable to be dismissed. This is the view taken by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of (Kewaldas Pandurang Awale v. Kunda Kewaldas Awale)2, reported in 1982 Mh.L.J. 167. The learned Single Judge observed :--- "Thus the unfortunate fact remains that in this otherwise good case for the wife, there was absolutely no allegation in her application filed under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, that she was unable to maintain herself. Not a word was stated by herself in this respect or by anyone on her behalf and even the trial Court failed to bear in its mind that only a wife unable to maintain herself is entitled to claim maintenance from the husband under the provisions of section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code..... It was absolutely essential for the wife to make this allegation and then to prove it and then it was for the learned trial Magistrate to have enquired into the question and to have recorded a finding that the wife was unable to maintain herself, before the wife could claim or the trial Court could grant any separate maintenance to the wife from the husband under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. That was an absolutely essential ingredient that was to be alleged, enquired into and proved in the instant case. I find myself absolutely, helpless in the circumstances of the present case to assist the respondent-wife in salvaging the maintenance that the learned trial Magistrate has deemed fit to grant to her under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code." Therefore, the averments in the application filed by the wife to the effect that she was unable to maintain herself and she had no source of income are essential ingredients and if the application for amendment was refused, it could very well end in the dismissal of the wife's application. The learned Magistrate, therefore, was justified in granting leave to the wife to amend her application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 12. The learned Magistrate, therefore, was justified in granting leave to the wife to amend her application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 12. With regard to the submission of Shri Joshi that the amendment if permitted would cause grave prejudice to the case of the husband, I do not think one can accept such a submission. An amendment generally can be permitted at any stage of the proceedings, even at the appeal stage. In the instant case, only the evidence of the wife has been completed as also one of her witnesses. I do not see how the husband's case could be prejudiced by granting leave to amend the application. 13. Shri Joshi also argued that by the amendment the wife had attempted to set up a fresh case. Even this submission, to my mind, is not acceptable. The wife has filed this application with a prayer for maintenance. Even after the amendment her prayer will remain, the same, i.e. to seek an order for maintenance from her husband. I do not think that the wife is introducing any new case by making an amendment which is an essential amendment under the relevant section. I am of the view that the learned Magistrate had jurisdiction to pass the order which he did and which was essential if the application was to succeed. I, therefore, see no reason for interfering with the order granting leave to amend. 14. It must be borne in mind that the application had been drafted by an Advocate and not by the applicant-wife, who presumably must be illiterate. To refuse permission to amend would, therefore, tantamount to penalising the wife for the fault of her Advocate. It needs also to be pointed out that the pleadings from the mofussil cannot be expected to be as meticulous and precise as the pleadings from urban areas. 15. I may only point out that had the amendment been refused by the learned trial Magistrate, the wife could have withdrawn her application or allowed the same to be dismissed. The wife could have filed a second application and this procedure could only have entailed further lapse of time and incurring of further costs. 16. Shri Joshi finally submitted that in the order passed by the learned Magistrate he has given permission to the wife to lead her evidence in support of the said amendment. The wife could have filed a second application and this procedure could only have entailed further lapse of time and incurring of further costs. 16. Shri Joshi finally submitted that in the order passed by the learned Magistrate he has given permission to the wife to lead her evidence in support of the said amendment. Shri Joshi pointed out that such a prayer had not been made in the application for amendment itself and what had been prayed for in the application was only leave to amend the application. Factually this position is correct. However, once the application is permitted to be amended, the learned Magistrate was bound to permit the wife to re-enter the witness-box in order to make out a case that she was unable to maintain herself and that she had no source of income. Shri Joshi has urged that I should strike down that part of the order where the learned Magistrate has permitted the wife to lead evidence in support of the amendment. I do not think that for a technical omission in a matter of this kind, I should strike down the order of the learned Magistrate. Ultimately an application would be made to the learned Magistrate to permit the wife to re-enter the witness-box in order to depose to the averments made in the amendment. I, therefore, see to reason for Interfering with the order passed by the learned Magistrate. 17. In the result, the rule is discharged. Considering that the application of the wife was made in the year 1979, I think, it will be appropriate that the learned Magistrate will expedite the application and dispose of the same as early as possible. Rule discharged. -----