JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral) 1. The applicant, by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeks to quash the impugned order dated 21.11.2016 passed by learned Additional Judge, Family Court, Roorkee, District Haridwar in Case No. 154 of 2014, Rudraksha vs. Shailendra Kumar, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant seeking recall of PW1 (Smt. Kamlesh) for further cross-examination and also seeking to summon the prosecution witnesses Smt. Prabha Devi, M.L.Kureel and Sushil Kumar, whose examination-in-chief through affidavit has been filed and admitted by the court, however they have not produced for cross-examination, has been rejected. 2. In summary proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., only one witness was examined by the applicant wife, although affidavits of three other witnesses were also filed. The applicant wife, being PW 1, was cross-examined by the husband-opposite party. Thereafter, learned counsel for the wife made an endorsement that she has not to adduce any other evidence. The application under Section 125 Cr. P.C. thereafter was listed for opposite party’s evidence. Order dated 21.11.2016 is under challenge before this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 3. The Court does not find any illegality in the order impugned. If the wife wants to adduce only one witness in support of her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the opposite party cannot compel her for other evidence. If the affidavits of three other witnesses have been filed by her, and she made an endorsement that she does znot want to adduce any other evidence, the affidavits of the evidence shall not be read in evidence because no opportunity for cross-examination has been given to the husband-opposite party. There is no infirmity or illegality in the order impugned. 4. Application under Section C-482 Cr.P.C. therefore fails and is dismissed.