IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT\ BILASPUR 5”“ M u‘lii’rzaé? a , n h PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF \\ THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE or.M.P.No. 3G OF 2007 1‘ f PETITIONER f ,2 NON-APPLICANT Shyamlal aged about 46 years, . S/o. Shri Dashru, R/o. Village 3/ Khairbana, Tahsil ‘ ' Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon (c.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS : l. Ramla Bai W/o. Shyamlal, aged about 41 years, Pardeshnin, D/o. Shyamlal, aged about 2O years Nankubaj 5/0. Shyamlal, aged about 18 years, All residents of Village ‘ Prakashpur, Tahsil Khairagarh, \ District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) . \ PETITION UNDER SECTION 48’2/31" \\ THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. ~; aaiwdLxeéem._ HIQH CQURT QF QHHAm§§ARH AT BELASPUR Single Banch : Hcn'ble Mn Justicg Pri?inkgr Diwgkgr CrMJ’. N9. 20 gf ZQQ? PETITI9NER hyamia§, S/o Dashm S Versus RESPONDENTS Ramia Bai é: omens. Shri A5. Ansar-L ccunsei far The pm‘ifianer. Shri Rakesh Pandey, ceunszi for The respondents. ‘1‘ 1 i» PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF TH€ CODE OF CRIMINAL ?QG€EBU’RE. ORDER (1507,2010) Presgnt petiTian fiizd under Sacrign 482 9f The Cade mt Criminal Procedure is directed agains? fhe impugned order dated 10.11.200é wssed by Addé’réami Ses3§ons Judge, Khaimgar'h in Criminal Revision No. 85/2005 whereby ieanad Revisional Cour? has dismissed ’rhe revision of the pe‘ri‘rioner' and has affirmed the order 0f ‘rhe Magistrafre aimed 242.2005 grani'ing main’renance of Rs‘300/- each per month in favour of the respondents. 2. Counsel for ”the petitioner submits that the respondent No. 1 is iiving separateiy of her own~without there being any sufficient cause, He submits that the respondent No. 1 is not his married wife and his first wife is Vimia Bai. He further submits that respondent No. 1 being q second wife is not entitled for any-maintenance. He also submits that thei marriage of the respondent No. 2 has been performed} subsequent to passing of the order and, therefore, now she isi l not entitled for any maintenance. i 3. On fhe ofher hand, munse! for The respondents suppor'fs Thg impugned Judgmenf and submits Thai impugned judgment is in accordance with law and were is nc infirmify in The same. He submifs fha‘r fhe respondenf Na. 1 is fhe married wife gf fhe petitioner and, Therefore, petitioner is iiabie To mainmin her. He submiis Thai he is no? aware abouf The marriage of 4r respgndenf No. 2. ij i V 4. Frcm The evidence, iT is apperenT Tha‘r The respandern‘ No. 1 is married wife 0f The peTiTicner and respondenTs N0. 2 6a 3 are his children. I find no reason To inTerfere wiTh The wei! reascned order passed by The MagisTraTe and Thai of Revisionoi CourT. BoTh The ceurTs beiow ofTer due considercd'ion of The evidence has given The concurrenT finding. 5o for as marriage 9f The respondenT N0. Z and her claim is concerned, peTiTioner'wouid be aT iiberTy To file appropriaTe appiicaTion before The courT beiow and To seek apprepria‘ie order. WiTh The above abservaTicn, peTiTion sTands disposed of. Q: Sdl- ' " Pritinker Diwaker ; ~ Judge i i D/—