^-^ -^ "^s^s?' A^. HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSOARH AT BILASPUR Cr.NI.P.No.190of2011 Petitioner Non-applicant Resoondents Applicants Om Prakash Jaiswal,S/o. Ramlakhan Sao, aged about 45 years, Occupation - Dismissed Teacher, R/o. Devigarq, at and P.S. Ramanujganj, CSsWct Surguja (C.G.) Versus 1. Smt.Asha Devi, W/o. Om Prakash Jaiswal, aged about 40years. 2. Navin Kumar, S/o. Om Prakash Jaiswal, aged about 19 years, 3. Pravin Kumar, S/o. Om Prakash Jaiswal, aged about 18 years. 4. Lucky, S/o. Om Prakash Jaiswat, aged about 14 years, Minor, through NaturG guardian motherthe respondent No.1 ' All R/o. Ramanujganj, Ward No.12, P.S. Ramanujganj, District Sarguja (Petition under Section 482ofthe Gr.P.C.) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Stonna, <(.) Mr.A.K.Prasad, counsel for th®potitioner. ORDeR(ORAL) (Passed on 5"1 Aprll, 2011) 1. By this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the petittoner has chailenged legaltty and propriety pfthe order dated 5.1.2011 ps sed by the Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Ramanujganj in Criminal Revision No.135/08, affirming the order dated 30.8.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Ciass, Ramanujganj In Criminal MJG No.127/99, whereby learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has tesued warrant of arrest for sending him jail in defautt of payment ofmaintenanee amount in recovery proceeding. While dismissing the revision the revisional Gourt has held that the present petitioner was contesting the case of recovery but has not paid any amount, therefore, the trial Court has not commjttad any iSlegality in passing sueh order. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned. •^ ''''; .^ 3. Learned counsel for the petNioner submtts that ttie petitioner has baen removed from servics and other respondents Navin Kumar and Pravin Kumar have attained the age of majority, therefore, theyare not entitled for maintenance. 4. These grounds are availabte to the petitioner in the applieaUon under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. for alteration of maintenance. Unlessorder of maintenance is altered or sst aside the petitioner is under obtlgation to pay amount of maintenance so ordered. ; 5. While passing such order the Courts below have ryot committed any iliegality warranting interference in exercise of revislonal jurisdiction. ^ 6. Consequently, the revision being devokl of merit is liableto be dianissal and it is hereby dismissed. 7. I.A.No.01 stands disposed of. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge ^