^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Criminal Misc. Petition No.6 of 2011 PETITIONER/: (Revisionist) RESPONDENT: Vinod Kujur Son of Joseph Kujur, aged about 30 years, Caste Uraon, Resident of Mahuapara, Fundurdihari, Ambikapur, Police Station & Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). Versus Anupa Toppo D/o Pulikop Toppo, aged about 30 years, Caste Christian, Resident of Gadiyantoli, Police Station & Tahsil Kunkuri, District Surguja (C.G.). {Petition under Section 482 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973} Present: Mr. V.K. Pandey with Ms. Neha Verma, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. J.K. Saxena, counsel forthe respondent. Smgle Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORAL ORDER (11-3-2011) 1. By this petition under Section 482 of the CrPC, the petitioner has challenged legality & propriety of the order dated 6-10-2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kunkuri in Criminal Revision No.24/2007 affirming the order dated 28-7-2007 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Link Court Kunkuri in Criminal Case No.78/2007, whereby learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has awarded maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to the respondent. 2. As per case of the parties, the respondent has claimed maintenance against the petitioner under Section 125 of the CrPC on the basis of the fact that she is legally wedded wife of the petitioner, the petitioner has neglected her and she is unable to maintain herself. By filing reply, the petitioner has denied his marriage with the respondent, initially, there was negotiation for marriageof the respondent with the petitioner, but the respondent was having illicit relation with some lyediyusis Minj & Arvind Ekka, thereafter, the petitioner declined to marry the respondent, though the respondent has resided in the liouse ofthe petitioner for three ^l ^ 7 fl, months in his absence. After providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has awarded maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month against the petitioner and the same was affirmed by the revisional Court. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned and records of the Courts below. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that in order to claim maintenance the respondent was under obligation to prove her lawful marriage with the petitioner and her inability for maintaining herself. In the present case, the respondent has not proved her lawful marriage with the petitioner and, therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance and while awarding maintenance both the Courts below have committed illegality. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the petition and submitted that concurrent finding of facts of the two Courts below are not required to be disturbed without any cogent reason. Evidence of both the parties clearly reveal that the petitioner has married the respondent andwas residing with her, thereafter, the petitioner neglected the respondent and the respondent is not able to maintain herself, therefore, she is entitled for maintenance. 6. The petitioner has deposed in his evidence that he is not Christian and he belongs to Uraon caste, but he has admitted in his evidence that there was negotiation for his marriage with the respondent who is Christian. He has further deposed in para 2 of his evidence that the respondent has resided in his house for 1 1A - 2 months in his absence, though as per para 17 of his reply, the respondent has resided in the house of the petitioner for 3 months. He has admitted his photograph with the respondent and also the photograph with the respondent & Father, but subsequently, he has denied the fact that same are photographs of the respondent and that the photographs are also forged. He has examined his witness No.2 Prahlad Kumar who has deposed that by trick photography on the basis of uniting two negatives, the photos which are available on record may be prepared. 7. Evidence of the petitioner alone reveals that there was negotiation for his marriage with the respondent who is by caste Christian and the petitioner is not Christian by caste. If marriage of the petitioner was not possible ^ Soma with the respondent, there was no question of any negotiation for their marriage. Firstly, the petitioner has admitted his photograph and photograph of the respondent, subsequently, he has denied even the photograph of the respondent. As per evidence of Prahlad Kumar (NAW-2), the photographs in question may be prepared by trick photography. However, this witness has not examined the photographs and has not opined that same are prepared by trick photography. 8. As per reply of the petitioner, the respondent resided in his house for three months, in his absence. As per his evidence, the respondent resided in his for 1 % - 2 months, in his absence, after termination of the marriage proposal. If the marriage proposal has been terminated on the ground of character and illicit relation of the respondent, there was no propriety for permitting the respondent to reside in the house of the petitioner, may be in his absence, by his other family members. If in absence of all members of the family of the petitioner, the respondent has resided in the house of the petitioner, then it was necessary for the petitioner to take appropriate action against the respondent. All these circumstances and evidence of the pefitioner himself reveal that the respondent is legally wedded wife of the petitioner and the petitioner has neglected her. 9. Considering the aforesaid evidence, both the Courts below have awarded maintenance to the respondent. While awarding maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to the respondent, both the Courts below have not committed any illegality requiring any interference in exercise of extra ordinary inherentjurisdiction. lO.Consequently, the petitiorr is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed, in limine. ~~ Sd/-' TRShanna Judge l