JUDGMENT Vivek Kumar Birla, J. The grievance of the applicant is that the opposite party has willfully, deliberately and knowingly flouted the order of the writ Court dated 28.1.2015 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 49513 of 2014 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Navneet Rana Vs. State of U.P.) which is quoted as under: "Heard Sri Birendra Singh, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Abhishek Srivastava and learned A.G.A for opposite parties. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. assails the correctness of orders dated 20.10.2014 and 18.11.2014, passed by Principal Judge (Family Court), Bijnor in Criminal Misc. Case No.957/2013 (Smt. Santosh Rana v. Navneet Rana) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., P.S. Noorpur, District Bijnor, whereby application (Paper No.52-B) filed by applicant for summoning O.P. No.2 for cross-examination and waiver of cost of Rs.5000/-, has been dismissed. Brief facts are as under: - An application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by O.P. No.2 on 16.3.2009. The applicant-husband filed his written statement in 2010. The examination-in-chief of wife/O.P. No.2 was recorded on 11.8.2010 and 22.9.2010, she was subjected to cross-examination on 22.9.2010, thereafter her evidence was closed on 23.11.2010. The case was being repeatedly adjourned on one pretext or the other since 15.12.2010 at the stage of applicant's/husband's evidence. Application dated 13.10.2014 (Paper No.-52-B) was filed by applicant for claiming further cross-examination on certain documents. The application was objected on the ground that it is an old case and applicant-husband is indulging in dilatory tactics. The application came to be rejected under the impugned order dated 20.10.2014. The records reveal that evidence of O.P. No.2/wife was closed on 23.11.2010 after she had been subjected to a detailed cross-examination on 22.9.2010. There is no whisper in the application (Paper No.52-B) as to in respect of which document, cross-examination was sought. In the absence of such a recital in the application, this court can draw a legitimate inference that the sole purpose of filing the said application, was with a view to further procrastinate the delay. It could not be disputed that an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. deserves expeditious disposal. Learned counsel for applicant on the strength of averments made in paragraph nos. 14 to 16 of the affidavit in support of application submits that wife/O.P. No.2 is not only gainfully employed with an Insurance Company, drawing monthly salary of Rs.20,000/-, but she also possesses considerable immovable property. Learned counsel for applicant on the strength of averments made in paragraph nos. 14 to 16 of the affidavit in support of application submits that wife/O.P. No.2 is not only gainfully employed with an Insurance Company, drawing monthly salary of Rs.20,000/-, but she also possesses considerable immovable property. The submission that the wife is possessed of considerable sufficient means to maintain herself, is an issue, which is to be decided at an appropriate stage after examining materials on record. Be that as it may, the Court is of the view that sufficient opportunity was granted to the applicant for cross-examination. The conduct of applicant displays that he is only entrusted in delaying the proceedings, as the application is pending disposal since 2009. I do not find any merit in this application. The application lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. However, the court concerned shall endeavour to decide the pending proceedings of Criminal Misc. Case No.957/2013 (Smt. Santosh Rana v. Navneet Rana), as expeditiously as possible. It is made clear that court below would not grant unnecessary adjournments, adjournments if any, shall be for strong and compelling reasons, else would attract exemplary cost." 2. A perusal of the order-sheet of Criminal Misc. Case No. 957 of 2013 indicates that in spite of the order although short dates are being fixed but the order of this Court has not been complied with. 3. Let a report be called for from the opposite party through OSD Litigation of this Court by tomorrow. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant shall inform the OSD Litigation in writing about the order passed. 5. Put up on 11.2.2016 showing the name of Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, Special Counsel for the High Court as counsel for opposite party. O.S.D. Litigation may authorize Sri Mehrotra to place the report before this Court. 6. Let a copy of this order be placed before the Registrar General of this Court for compliance.