JUDGMENT V.K. Khanna, J. - This is an application under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the order dated 28-7-84 passed by the IV Munsiff Magistrate, Varanasi in Case No. 1025 of 1982, Shamsunnissa v. Jamal Ahmad, under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code. 2. The brief facts for the purposes of deciding the present application are that petitioner Smt. Shamsunnissa filed an application under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code claiming maintenance before the IV Munsif Magistrate on the ground that respondent No. 2, Jamal Ahmad has developed illicit connections with a woman and he is always living with that woman in her house and has neglected and refused to maintain the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 contested the aforesaid application and denied the allegations made by Smt. Shamsunnissa. In this case it may be noted that the evidence of the petitioner and respondent No. 2 was closed and thereafter an application on 13-1-84 was moved by Smt. Shamsunnissa (Annexure IV) praying that she may be allowed to adduce evidence as respondent No. 2 has contacted second marriage with the daughter of tiadruddin. Under the impugned order dated 28-7-84 it is this application moved by Smt. Shamsunnissa that has been rejected by the IV Munsif Magistrate, Varanasi. 3. I have carefully gone through the application and the documents filed along with it and have also heard learned counsel for the contesting respondent Mr. N. N. Singh. 4. Learned Counsel for the contesting respondent has strenuously urged that the application did not disclose the names of the witnesses whom Smt. Shamsunnissa wanted to examine in this case and in view of the provisions of Section 311 Criminal Procedure Code the Magistrate in any view of the matter could not pass an order in favour of the petitioner. 5. Learned Counsel for the contesting respondent has strenuously urged that the application did not disclose the names of the witnesses whom Smt. Shamsunnissa wanted to examine in this case and in view of the provisions of Section 311 Criminal Procedure Code the Magistrate in any view of the matter could not pass an order in favour of the petitioner. 5. The first question to be examined in this case is as to whether an the facts disclosed in the application that a second marriage has been contacted by Jamal Ahmed after the closing of the evidence by the petitioner, fresh evidence could be lead by the petitioner on the question that a second marriage has in fact been contacted by Jamal Ahmed, I am of the opinion that as according to the petitioner the fact has in fact come into existence after the closure of the evidence by the petitioner she could lead evidence on this question as that would be material evidence for the decision of the case. In the application there is no reference as who are the witnesses sought to be examined by the petitioner and thus no orders could be passed by the Magistrate trader Section 311 Criminal Procedure Code. 6. For the reasons stated above in my opinion the impugned order in so far as it records a finding that the petitioner could not lead evidence on the question of second marriage is liable to be quashed. It is being made clear that in case the petitioner makes a specific application giving names of the witnesses whom she wants to examine on the question of second marriage the same shall be dealt with by the Magistrate under Section 311 Criminal Procedure Code and appropriate orders will be passed in accordance with law. 7. Subject to the aforesaid observations the present application is allowed in part. A copy of this order shall he sent to the concerned Magistrate within a week from today by the High Court office. The stay order granted by this Court on 2-8-84 is vacated. 8. A certified copy of this order shall be given to the learned counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges within three days.