JUDGMENT 1. - Heard Shri Khatri for the petitioners. 2. It appears that the petitioners moved an application u/s 125, Cr.P.C. 1973 for granting of maintenance to them against the non petitioner in the court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh. The non-petitioner is husband of Sharda and father of Chandra Kala. The petitioners moved an application for granting of interim maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- per month pending the final decision of the application. The non-petitioner opposed this application by a reply filed on 17-6-89. The learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, however, granted an interim maintenance of Rs. 800/- per month to the petitioners. On a revision to this Court, the amount of this interim maintenance was reduced to 500/- per month. 3. It appears that the non-petitioner is also contesting the main application of the petitioners u/s 125, Cr. PC and he has filed a reply on 11-6-90 opposing the main application. The case is now fixed for petitioners' evidence in support of their application. The petitioner moved an application before the learned Magistrate to the effect that she is a `pardanasheen' lady and she also remains ill. Her brother Askaran is fully acquainted with the facts of this case. She has, therefore, appointed her brother Askaran as her `Mukhtiar Khas on 19-1-91 authorising him to give statement in court in the matter. She, therefore submitted that she may be permitted to examine Askaran in her place as a witness. This application was opposed on behalf of the non-petitioner. The learned Magistrate considered the rival contentions and relying upon Shambhu Dutta Shastri v. State of Raj. & Ors., ( 1986 (2) WLN 713 ) , held that a general power of attorney holder can, of course, appear and plead and act on behalf of the party but he cannot appear as a witness in lieu of the petitioner, because no one can delegate the power to some body else to appear as witness instead of himself/herself. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the afore-said dictum of the learned single Judge of this Court runs counter to the dictum in Gulab Devi v. Bhagwan Sahai (1970 WLN 616) , wherein the general power of attorney holder was permitted to be examined as a witness on behalf of the plaintiff. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the afore-said dictum of the learned single Judge of this Court runs counter to the dictum in Gulab Devi v. Bhagwan Sahai (1970 WLN 616) , wherein the general power of attorney holder was permitted to be examined as a witness on behalf of the plaintiff. He, therefore, submits that the learned trial court should have permitted the petitioners to examine Sharda's brother, who was her `Mukhtiar Khas' in her place. He has further relied Nalini Ranjan Chakarvati v. Smt. Karan Rani Chakarvati (AIR 1965 Patna 442) , in support of this proposition. 5. I have given my earnest consideration to the arguments urged before me and have also perused the order of the Magistrate. 6. The proceedings u/s 125, Cr. PC are essentially of quasi-criminal nature. An application u/s 125, Cr. PC, is not a complainant as defined in Sec. 2 (d) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Whom the applicant would examine witnesses in support of the case u/s 125 is the sole discretion of the applicant herself. The Magistrate is only required to consider whether proof has been adduced before him of the matters which entitles an applicant to grant of maintenance u/s. 125, Cr.PC Sec. 126, Cr. PC provides the procedure which has to be adopted while dealing with the application u/s 125, Cr. PC. This section does not require that an appellant u/s 125, Cr. PC. must examine herself in support of her application. The requirement of law is that all evidence in such proceedings shall be taken in the presence of the person against whom the order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made, or when personal attendance is disposed with, in the presence of his pleader, and shall be recorded in the manner prescribed for summons-cases except when the case falls under the proviso. Sec. 254. Cr. PC. provides the relevant procedure. It does not make it obligatory for the applicant to examine herself. It merely requires the Magistrate to "hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution." "Evidence" has been defined in section 4 of the Evidence Act to mean, inter-alia, all statements which the court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses in relation to matters of fact under enquiry. 7. 7. An application is a competent and a proper witness in proceedings u/s 125, Cr. PC. However, if the petitioner does not want to examine herself in support of her application, she can not be compelled to do so. She can examine such witnesses, as she deems proper in support of her application and the order in which such witnesses are to be examined is also a master in her sole discretion. However, the matter is different when the petitioners says that a particular person should be examined in her place. This she cannot say. If she does not examine herself, necessary inference under law in the given circumstances of the case can be drawn by the Magistrate. However, the learned Magistrate cannot insist that she should examine herself. Gulab Devi's case (supra) is not an authority for the proposition that a person can delegate authority to some body else to appear in her or his place as a witness. In that case the trial court had directed the plaintiff to examine herself in evidence. Of course, such a direction was not warranted by any provision of law. In that case his Lordships Justice P.N. Singhal, as he then was, observed while citing with approval Morno Moyco Debes and Anr. v. Bheem Choudhary, (1966 Sutherland Weekly Reporter) as follows:- "Now, it is not the business of the Court to determine what witnesses shall be examined; the parties must select their own witnesses and call upon the Court to examine such of them as they may offer for examination." This supports me when I say that the petitioner could not be compelled to say whom she would examine and whom she would not examine. However, this ruling does not lay down that an applicant can say that in her place, she would examine some body else. 8. In Shambhu Dutt Shastri's case (supra) following observations were made by the learned single Judge of this Court:- "A general power of attorney holder can appear, plead and act on behalf of the party, but he cannot become a witness on behalf of the party. He can only appear in his own capacity. No one can delegate the power to appear in witness box on behalf of himself. To appear in a witness box is altogether a different act. He can only appear in his own capacity. No one can delegate the power to appear in witness box on behalf of himself. To appear in a witness box is altogether a different act. A general power of attorney holder cannot be allowed to appear as a witness on behalf of the plaintiff in the capacity of the plaintiff." I would merely & that the expression on behalf of in the above observations were perhaps only intended to mean in lieu of' and no more. This observation with aforesaid modification supports me that the petitioner could not have asked the learned Magistrate to examine her Mukhtiar Khas' in her place as a witness. Of course, it was for her to decide not to examine herself as witness. It was her choice to examine her `Mukhtiar Khas' as a witness in support of her application but she could not say that her `Mukhatiar Khas should be examined in her place as a witness. In law, no person can be examined in her stead. 9. In view of what I have stated above, I find that the order of the learned Magistrate saying that the `Mukhtiar Khas' cannot appear as a witness in lieu of petitioner, is perfectly correct and proper. The order, therefore, does not call for any interference; however, the cost of repetition, I will make it clear that it is the choice of the petitioner to examine herself or not. She can examine he Mukhtiar Khas as her witness in support of her application but not in lieu of herself. In case she chooses not to examine herself, it will be for the learned Magistrate to draw such an inference as is permissible under the circumstances of the case. 10. With these observations, I find no force in this revision petition. The same is dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******