Judgment U.C. Maheshwari, J.;- 1. The applicant wife has preferred this revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr. P.C. being aggrieved by the order dt. 30.8.2011 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class Khategaon District Dewas, in Misc. Criminal Case No. 2/2011 whereby her application filed for amendment in the principal application filed under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C. has been dismissed. Applicant Counsel after taking me through the revision as well as the papers placed on the record along with the impugned order argued that after filing the application under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C. the respondent had got remarried with some other women and on receiving such information, the impugned application to place such subsequent event on record was filed by the applicant. He further argued that on the date of filing the application under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C. such fact was not in existence so it could not have been stated in such original application. It was also argued that the proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C. being quasi-civil proceedings, the Trial Court ought to have allowed such application with justice oriented approach but the same has been dismissed under the wrong premises and prayed for allowing this revision. 2. On the other hand, responding the aforesaid argument Shri Vikas Yadav, appearing Counsel for the respondent by justifying the impugned order argued that impugned case being criminal case the provision of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was not applicable and in such premises, the Trial Court has not committed any error in dismissing the application. He further argued that even otherwise against dismissal of the application of Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC the revision under Section 397/401 of the Cr. P.C. is not entertainable. Such order could not be challenged except by way of writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In continuation he said that impugned application was filed by the applicant at belated stage after closing her evidence only with intention to prolong the matter. So in such premises, the Trial Court has also not committed any error in passing the impugned order, and prayed for dismissal of this revision. 3. In continuation he said that impugned application was filed by the applicant at belated stage after closing her evidence only with intention to prolong the matter. So in such premises, the Trial Court has also not committed any error in passing the impugned order, and prayed for dismissal of this revision. 3. Having heard the Counsel and keeping in view their respective argument, I have carefully gone through the papers placed on the record along with the aforesaid impugned application of amendment as well as the impugned order. 4. It is a trite law that strict rules of the pleadings are not applicable to the case under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C. Under such provision only application is required and after filing such an application if any subsequent event comes in existence then there is no bar under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C. to place such fact on record either by the separate application or by way of amendment in the original application. In the case at hand, it is apparent that the allegation regarding second marriage carried out by the respondent has come into existence in pendency of the principal application filed by the applicant under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C. In such premises, there was no option with the applicant except to file the amendment application or the separate application to place such fact on record and in such premises, the Trial Court was duty bound to take such subsequent event on record by allowing the application but the same has been dismissed. 5. As per settled preposition, the proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C. is treated to be a quasi-civil proceeding and in such premises, the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC or some other provision of such Code could not be applied strictly but whenever the specific provision in this regard is not available in the special enactment then in that position, Court may adopt the principal laid down by the Apex Court either in the civil case or in the criminal case. In such premises, if the present matter is examined in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of P. Venkateswarlu v. Motor & General Traders reported in AIR 1975 SC 1409 holding that the parties have right to amend the pleadings on the basis of the subsequent event which has come into existence during pendency of the suit, then the aforesaid application of amendment deserves to be allowed by allowing this revision. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dismissing the application of the applicant being perverse and contrary to the proprietary of the law deserves to be and is, hereby, set-aside. Consequently, the application of the applicant is allowed and she is directed to amend the principal application accordingly. Simultaneously the respondent is also extended a liberty to file the application for consequential amendment in his reply. Now the parties are directed through their Counsel to appear before the Trial Court on 30.10.2012 to proceed with the matter further. 7. The record of the Trial Court be sent immediately to such Court to hold the trial. The revision is allowed as indicated above.