HIGH COURT OF OIHAmSGARH AT BILASPIHl &•• M.P. Mo. 262of 2008 PBTmONBR VERSUS RBSPONDENT Bhana Ba ayed about 53 years, W/o Ram Lal Sahu, Occupation nothing R/o ViU^e Manikcbauri, Police Station Pipanya, District Kabirdham C.G. Ram Lal Sahu, a^ed about 56 years, S/o Bhuru Sahu, Occupation - Agriculturist, R/o Dhaiaiapura, Pollce Statmn Pipariya, District Kabudham C.G. MISCBULAnBQUS CRIMmAl. PETITIOW UnDER 1 CTIO» <»a OF- CRIMmALPROGEDURECODE. (SB ijHoa'bte Mt. T.P.SIiaraaa, J.) Present: Shri Rakesh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner., Shri Pradeep Singh, Advocate ibr the respondent.i ORAL- ORDBR (Passedoa 14/12/2009} 1. This petition undcr Sectk>n 482 offhe Code of Ciimtoal Pisocedure, 1973 (ia short 'the Code^ for qushment of the order dated 3/4/08 passed by fhc Scssions Judge, Kabudhaaa ia criminal revision No. 44/2007 aEBrming thc order dated 4/8/07 passed by (he Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kawardha in Criininal M.J.C, No. 154/06 where by learaed Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kawardlia has disinissed fhe petition for inaintenance filcd on behalf of fhe petitioaer. 2. Leam.edcounscl forthe parties are hcard. 3. Order impugned perused. ' 4. Leamed couasel for fhe petitioncr submits fhatpetition for matetenaaee filed on behalf of fhe petitioaer was dismfeaed by the Court below ovJy on i! fhe ground that she has filed the petition afker lapse of30 years aQ(^ fhe provisions is nieant for graating iDEunediate relief to fhe dcpenderit tp iave them: fi-oiu any destttution ami vagrancy. z: -^. Accordiag to the petitton and copy of ttie order parties are Hiadu tey/sSly weddcd spouses. Petitfonier h^ fited tte pctttion for mauitenaace aftor lapse of 30 ycars saiae was dismisscd on the ground fhat after lapse of 30 years of such scparate residence of fhe petitioncr pctition for maintenance is notjust aud proper aad has not been filcd with a view to save hcrself fiom. imnicdiate destitution aad vagrancy. Order anpugned reveals tfaat substantiatty petition has beea disiaissed on fhe ground that itwas filcd after lapse of30 years. Paras 7 & 8 revcal fhat at fhe tfme of separate Uvuig of fhe parties laeeting was convened and some laad was given to fhe pctitioner but subsequenfly samewas be treated ia the nanie of the son of fhe parties. Para -9 reveal that a^ a result of old age she becoine iinable to mamtein herselfaad her son is not main.taming her. Under Section 125 of the Code thc prelimiaaty liability to inaintam ffae wife is on the husband no Huutation has been prescribed for filing fhe petitiou for iiiamtenan.ee under Section 125 of the Code. In abscnceQf aay Imutation the dismissal ofthe petition substautiatty on the giound of liinitation is not legally permissible with a view to seciire fhe ends of justice fhe petition is aUcwed. Order impugncd and fhe oider of fhe trial Coitrt is hereby quashed. Trial CourtshaU provide fhe opportunity of hearing to fhe parties includmg the opportunity ofadducingfhe evidence and decide the inatter afi-esh. Parties are directed to appear biefiwe tfae| Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kawardha on 20/1/2010 foi furfher;pro^ess^ of the case. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge