Modification in an order

See the chronology of your case in red.

That is why we say you have written every facts except the content of the Feb. 2011 Order of the concerned Court?  Where is it Mr. queriest???

However early generic reply is as follows;

"There is no provision under the Code of Criminal Procedure which empowers the Magistrate to recall or review his own order, once passed by him, except in cases where they are all interim in nature.

The said order can only be challenged by the complainant in accordance with law before a superior Court and it is only the superior Court which can, for the reasons which are justified and specified by the requirement of law, set aside such an Order."

Also to boost your morale your track so far chronologically are fine except you need a seasoned advocates fine tunes lessons here and there, hence, try investing on consultation fees based Chamber discussion sooner than later as you have assumable right sets of skills other than how to “press the same” before the Bench.

please find attached order.

Sec 125 case is in family court. Can the judge use Section 152 and 153 cpc ?

 Thanks.

1. Gone over your Order copy and once again re-read your opening query and her quote therein which she wants now to change;

You say in your opening query above first thread post which I quote from your own texts that;

"she wants to change it to : "She wants to reside with respondent, That dispute is not only with respondent, dispute is with the family members with respondent".

whereas in the annexed Order, Court stated her statement to as;

"petitioner is still interested in residing together, counsel for petitioner submits that dispute is not with the respondent but the same is with the family members of the respondents."

So what is different that she and or the Court wants to review its own Order now for??? I am aware the moment she tries to omit “she wants to reside with respondent” from Court order statement she has no locus to seek maint. under S. 125 CrPC and case gets dismissed as compromised because case is against you first and residing with you is important intent and object under S. 125 CrPC and your parents and others dogs and cats of family comes next arrayed respondent if it can be allowed as a figure of speech is what I express crudely here.

That is also one of the reaosn why Court was then interested ot know your mothers ward bed no. of Max Hospital ! Got it. But you never questioned us that !!! Kyu ji ?


And how does it greatly change her constant evolving stand if she wants to come back or not means reconcile with you as now you re-read her change she is proposing under "review" mentioned above in blue and there in blue she is saying disputes is with you as well as with your family members is it not what it means that she is not interested in reconciliation so why court is thinking to review its own Order ask Court by showing above underline difference ???

And moreover what happened on next date in 2011 ???

   
2. We will talk some other time on inherent powers under S. 561 A CrPC vis-à-vis S. 152 / S. 153 CPC as we want clarity on above so called difference both of you are struck as in crude Hindi we say her statement under review is like chit bhi meri, pat bhi meri aur dhela bhi mera ! 

I will give you now a very straight forward opinion; forget contempt, forget perjury, forget CD / DVD and blah blah that is keeping you busy all these years (it happens when a litigant goes into a loop curtsey metro wife changing statement with same intact vanilla flavor). Rake (means put your both foot down at Bar before Bench) above underlines and request -request- request Court to record under Oath her above blue statement that is all and simultaneously file an Misl. Application to dismiss her case PERIOD.

Sorry for the mixup, here is more clarity.

I was not prsent in court, my lawyer was.

She want add "Only"
 in the order where it says ....

That dispute is not "..........."  with respondent, dispute is with the family members with respondent"

he he

Rephrase her blue and court red with "only" in green somethere in between for other readers clarity too.

Use below readymade silver platter for illustrating again your point

"she wants to change it to : "She wants to reside with respondent, That dispute is not only with respondent, dispute is with the family members with respondent".

whereas in the annexed Order, Court stated her statement to as;

"petitioner is still interested in residing together, counsel for petitioner submits that dispute is not with the respondent but the same is with the family members of the respondents."

Edited the post ... but this thing has been boggling mind so much....Taj bhai ... can you please throw some more light over the issue.

use above illustration of two paras (one of her and another which is that of the court) so that continuity is maintained instead of further confusing yourself and one can reply accordingly.