XI-HC—7S :7<STq!T'R;iW :11' 'SH^T ^RI^ l«Ki-B:a. F5^ -^WW^, ^WKS,, K\i^Wy. '^^ Ttnwir *<4i* an^r 1BR? ??giw;^ft«'3ii^i %i4?d^li ^i*i^il*'^fst^ ^^cj.j< ^? 3IRP1 311^^1 PETITCONER Non-dfylicant ,.P. .274/2007 Vs RESPONWNTS 4nand das, S/o Lditel t>as, aged about 25 ^ears, Caste-Satnam, Occupation- 4griculturist, R/o Viltage Har-inchhapra, Police Std-ion A Tahsil Kiamrdha, UsH. Kabirdham (j;.6.) |. Bhogwati Bai, W/o Anand Das, aged about 22 years, Caste-Satnami, R/o Village Harinchhapra, Police Station & Tahsil Kawardha, Disn. Kabirdham (C.6.) Presently R/o Village Boda, Potice Station & Tahsil Muryeli, Ustt. Bilaspur (C.&.) StCEt-e of Chhottisgarh, Through;- Collector, Kawiarcha, Ustt. Kdbirdham Present; AAr, Ajit 5in9h,Adv. for The petitioner-huj the Cr.P.C. has impugne( passed by !earned Sessj Revision No. 11/07 when against the order d<ri[ Magistrate First Class, been rejeeted and the he petitioner. ORAL O R&E R (23W1 August. 2007) i^band by this petition under Section 482 of the order dated 14.06.07 of Annexure P-2 jons Judge, Kawardha (Kabirdham) in Criminal by the revision preferred by the petitioner |ed 26.3.2007 passed by learned Judicia! Kawardha in Misc. Crimina! Case No.63/06 has order of maintenance passed in favour of ail^T.^T Ri-ii* ^wsn^i wv ISS^SP'^ ^ •• r5sr -^ww^, •QT^WKS,, Ri<7i!y^< tll^rt! sSKTOT anSw 1131% (l^f^^f) I^IRR ^lfttf 3IltW (L- respondent No.l herein @ Rs. has been confirmed. The ground taken by th both the courts below havel months of the marrioge separately on her own free ready and willing to keep the r| I have heard learned c^ ^500/- per month from the date of order Both the courts betow record held thot the petition| contracf'ed second marriage justifies the separnte iiving o( ^iNwih •RIlRli if fS^ •rfsTRT!: '^STfW3T!^[ ^ petitioner in the instant petition is that ignored the fact thfft only after four he respondent wife start-ed residing [will and that the petitioner herein was espondent No.l-wife with him. sunsel for the petitioner and perused the ksn the basis of evidence available on the fer used to harass respondent No.l in the name of demand of dowry ar^d further that the petitioner herein has ^ind is living with his second wife, which respondent No.l herein. The above findings is ^ concurrent finding of fact recwded by both the courts below and t^ie tearned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to cite any ill^gality or infirmity in the inipugned order which calls for interference by this Courf in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. In the resuit, the peti^-ion being devoid of substance is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra -.-^..-..J_.... GRPRJ—FS/246- Judge '2CS'7 —. 50.CSO.