JUDGMENT 1. - The grievance of the petitioner is that during the pendency of the proceedings before the trial Court an application was moved by the petitioner wherein pure question of law had been raised in view of the admission made by the respondent No.4 in respect of proceedings wherein relief of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been claimed. It is contended by Shri Mandhana learned counsel for the petitioner that, admission made by respondent No.4 in respect of proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., is binding since he has made a categorical statement before the trial Court that instead of paying maintenance allowance to the petitioner she will be allowed to take one room and kitchen for her use. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed this contention and has stated that the application moved under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was moved after in ordinate delay but anyhow it has been moved before the pronouncement of the judgment and during the pendency of the suit.Keeping in view the feats and circumstances and since the amendment which is sought for is confined only to the pure question of law which, in my opinion should have been allowed by the learned trial Court. The revision petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 8-4-94 is quashed and set aside and the trial Court is directed to proceed with the matter. The application of the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC which was rejected by the trial Court is allowed. The trial Court is directed to decide the matter expeditiously. However, this order would not cause any prejudice to the merits of the case. Let the amended written statement be filed within one month from today and the suit be decided in any case not later that 6 months from today.Revision allowed. *******