H§GH COURT aF CHHAT‘FESEARH AT BILAS?UR Cr.M.P.Na.346 c? 251 $ Agmicant Sheikh Hidayatulb, Sic Sharifuédin! aged about 44 yeaxs, Occupation - Service and agricuiturist, Resident of Parradond, Ambikapur, RS. and Tahsil Ambikapur, Di'sirkst — Surguja (CG) Versus Aasma Begam, Wk: Hidayatulia, aged about 33 years, 2. Suitana D/o Hidayatuiia, aged about 10 years, 3. Afsama {ii/o Hidayatuiia, aged about $ years , Both the non-appiicants No.2 am“ 3 are minof, Through : Natura! Guardiiar; Mciher sf £a$ma Begam Aii the nsn-appiicants are Resident cf vmage Kuchdi, P5. am} Tahsii Sura‘}pu{, Disiiisi $urguja (63.) a. Womaggiicants (Peiition under Section 482 of :he CLRC. (SE: Hcn’me Mr. “aiP. Shanna, J4 Present:- Mr.$unii Tripathi, counsei for the appiicani. MrAtanu Ghosh, counsei for the non—appi§cants. UREER {ORAL} (Passed an 19‘ January, 2011) 1. By this petiticn under Sectien 482 of the Cr.P.C., the appiicant has chalienged iegamy and propriety of ihe crder dated 21.4.2010 passed by the Additiona! Chief Judiciai Magistraie, Surajpur én", Misc. Criminei Case No.69/2009, whereby appiication fiiezi under Section 4.1 read wiih Search 154. ef :he CLEO. on behah' of the applicant has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts ef the case as per copies oi the orders and documents fiied on behaif of the appiicant are that vio‘e order dated 13.10.200Q, the Addittonai Chief Judiciai Magistrate, Surajpur has passed the erder of maintenance of Rsiiwl- per month each nonV-appiicants No.2 and 3 in Miso.Criminai Case No.270197’egainst the present appiiceht and has denied maintenance to non-appiioant Net. Same was chaiienged before the Third Additionai Sessions Judge {F.T.C.), Suraipur‘ in Misc. Criminei Revision No.57/2001. Revisional Court vide order dated 26.3.2002 has modified the order and maintenance of ) @ “2—; iRs.500/— per month was alga awarded to non-applicant N01. Revision peiitian was med against the saié order by the appHcant before this Court bearing Criminal Revision No.223 of 2002 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 30.3.2G09. Thereafier, during pendency‘ of execuiion proceeding at the instance of nan-appiicant Ne.1, execution proceeding was dropped Vide order dated 12.1.2094. Thereafter, present nonsppiicams have fiied fresh appiication under Sectian 125 of the Cr.P,C. . I have heard iearned counsei for the parties. . Learned counsei for the applicant submits that modified order of maintenance in favour of the non-appiicanis passed in’ iviisc. Criminai Revisicn No.57/2GO’: by the Third Additienai Sessions Judge {F.T.C.), Surajpur daied 26.3.2002 is siiii in existence whereby the revisionai Court has awarded maintenance of' Rs.400/— per month each to nen-appiicanis N02 and 3 and Rs.500i— per month to non—appiicant No.1. Learned counsei further submits that during subsistence of the aforesaid order, second application for maintenance is not sustainabie under the iaw. . 0n the other hand, learned counsei for the non~applicants opposes the petition. ’ . Admittedly, order dated 26.3.2S02 passed by the Third Additionai Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Suraipur in Misc. Criminai Revision No.57/2001 whereby Rs.500/— per month has been awarded to non-appiicant No.1 and Rs.4a9 — per month each has been awarded to non-applicants No.2 and’3 are in existence. During subsistence of such order, second appiication under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is not maintainabie. in case of any inadequacy, the non~appiicants are at iiberty to file appropriate application in terms of Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. in these circumstances, continuance cf second appiication under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. in Misc.Criminai Case No.69/2009 wouid oniy be abuse of process of the Court. . Consequently, the petition is aiiowed. Order dated 21 4.2010 and continuance of criminai proceeding in Misc.Criminai Case No.59/2009 pending before the Additionai Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suraipur are hereby quashed. . i.A.No.0‘i stands disposed of. 0,. Sdl- T.P. Sharma judge