^! oW sinajcsa IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT_OF CHHATriSGARH AT BILASPUR CRIMINAL REVISION N0. ^e? ^ /2011jS.^Jl REVISIONER/ NON-APPLICANT fbefore the familv court) RESPONDENT/ APPLICANT (before the family court) G^-2^"^ v*-*9--:':^'^^^ 'v^^^jEf..-- Ml»« Ramlakhan, S/o Sobha Sahu, aged about 45 years, R/o Village^ Talwapara, P.S. and Tahsil Baikunthpur , Distt.- Korea(C.G.) VERSUS Raimuniya Bai, D/o Raghunandan, W/o Ramlakhan, aged about 35 years, R/o Village Khanda, Police Station- Patna, Tahsil-Baikunthpur, District- Korea (C.G.) CRIMINAL REVISION UNDER SECTION 1914) OFTHE FAMILY COURT ACT A., w^s -w fsFriq; W( •BS^I ai'qNi' C9 ^a7?TRTO, '®Tfl'.l:FR',r^TRTy ^....!2x.^..^?...:.&.ZS>.l.].!. Sf^V !T?%~ ('^{O^S;) !ni '^TOR'gisd sn^i SB: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Moh*n Shrivastava. J. 14.11.2011 Shri Anil Gulati, counsel for (he applicant. Heard on admission. This revision has been pref^rred against order dated 25/08/2011 passed tsy the iearned Family Court whereb^ mamage, a son was bom whict') aipifenh -=FI?J{' -if feaT •risirl^i<: ^; siRp'i an^i the appiication for grant of maintenanceunder Section 125 CrPC fifed by the resp|ondent has been allowed. The application under Sectijan 125 Crrc for grant of maintenance was fiied by the respondent against the japplicant claiming maintenance of a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month on the plea^iings that e partes were married about 22-23 years before the date of filing ap^iication for maintenance. After three yeare of iater on died in fte year 2006 due to some disease. It was stated that the afjfplicant used to abuse and beat ttie nespondent and her chfld and they were shunjted out ofthe house whereafter, the respondent started living with her son in villa^ - Kasra and the applicant nevertumed up. It was stated that ttie applicant has jcept one IVIanmati with him. It wasfurther stated that the son of the respondent wa^ looking after the respondent but after his death, there is no one to take care of het- and because of various disease, she is unable to maintain hereeifand she is suff^ring starvation. In reply, the appiicant d^nied allegations and made allegations about chastity of his wife and stated th^t she herself left the matrimonial house with her son and ttiereafter, contacted rr<amage with another person and a report was iodged inthe poiice station. It is fjjrther submitted that the respondent had lived as wife of one Girdhari and had subtnitted an application for grant of maintenance in the year 1989 under case numb^- 37189, whfch was rejected. Therefore, in tnese ;_-circun'isteiacesjindaftCTsycIiLa d^lay, the application is liable to be rejected. !r,(wrt<?n»—»'s/i40—2/2011—1,50,000 !?-•.'. ^sM -HC—78 311^1 W l<-f WT ^iTl^l 3'»*ii4» <i'°=l '^IPTRHT; yalwis, facfiyy d-l''^ - 1^0 , NIIWI fl»*<ra» ^llL "^1,200 31I^T'Iraq7 ( yitai'i'?) K<iiwaftg sii^i enterlaining Learned counsel fbr the committed gross illegatity in filed after 26 years. He submi(s evidence on record whteh prove| seven years before, had contacte^ and had also claimed maintenanc^ rejected. Therefore, the applicatiofi A perusai of the impugned taken into consideration the testimony of the applicant himself solemnized between the parties ih dispute between the parties. Le^r absence of there being any respondent is the iegally wedded whether the respondent is residinfi Court has taken into consideratioji and her witnesses Baijnath as version that she was beaten anc| peb'tioner. They have aiso deposejd to the house of the respondent respondent. As far as the case another mamage, the leamed criminal case no.37/89, has com^ Girdhari Sahu is Raimatia Raimuniya. The Court has respondent, who has cleariy d^r ap()iicant Fanjiiy wherelas taHen <»>i<<f<ri<ilTi *ii*iciT'^1s1t<^<Pn<$R ^StRfH 311^1 submitted that the leamed Famiiy Court the application for grant of maintenance that the leamed Famiiy Court ignored the |that the respondent having left the applicant another marriage and was living wilh Girdhari by fiting applicafion against Girdtiari which was for grant of maintenance was frivolous. lorder shows that the leamed Family Court has of the respondent - Raimuniya and the to record a finding of fect that marriage was the year 1980 and on this point, there is no (rned Famiiy Court further recorded that in the or proof of dissolution of marriage, the of the appiicant. In order to decide the issue separately on proper and sufficient cause, the the testimony of the respondent - Rainrwniya jp Manmohan who have supported Raimuniya's shunted out of the mafrimoniai house by the ttiat when appiicant's son Rajlal died, he rame ^nd jointly performed iast ceremonies with the |af the applicant that respondent had contacted Court after going threugh the OKJer pa^ed in to the conclusion that the name of the wife of in the present case, responctent's name is <en into consideration the testimony of the inied having either filed any application for testifnony ih ple^dings vl'ife ^et': a^qirfrri^ wisff^rgTtiN; •yss ~^o.',w^tf^ w^wvs, t^diyy,< .^x^.^s.^.'^l gn^?r sp?<?i (ipf^s^-) ^OTWdfet SiI^T gjTqfn^T •syTt^J if fs%:f TiW^IC ^? .•BRTi an^i maintenance against Girdhari or <|eposed in any case in the name of Raimatia. The leamed Court below has not r^lied upon exhibit D/5 and D/6, recording that no witness to prove the document h^is been examined. The Court below has aiso held that the applicant did not diet anyone examined from the family of said Girdhari. The evidence of the res()ondent that after the daath of her son, ther®is no one to lookafter her and she islunable to maintain hereelf, has been treated as uncontroverted testimony and ttfre Court below altowed theapplication. S/ impugned order, an amount of Rs.pOO/- per month has been directad to be paid to the respondent. In the opinion of this Court calling for interference by this Coi^rt in exercise of te revisional jurisdietion. The revision is accordingly dismissed. ManindraMoh^Shrivastava Judge L- there is no jurisdictional illegality or perva'sity WB-<~t9 <Wto >i<"iii.Ki, (rwifipna—tS/140—2/2011 —i,so,ooo.