HIOH €X>URTOF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON*BLB SHRI JU8TICB PRITIKKBR mWAKBR CR.M.P. XO. 30Q/2QQ9 PBTITIOWBR Versus RE8PONDENT Khelu @ Ramkhp.lu Patel (Lodlii) S/o. Shera Lcxlhi, aged about 38 years, r/o, ViUage Baharmuda, Police Station Pipaxiya, Tahsil & Distdct Kawardha (CG) Kaushal Bai, D/o. Kashiram^ aged about 35 years, r/o. village Kandai, PoMce Station Bemetara, Tahsil Bemetara, Distt. Dui^ (CG) APPLICATION UNDBR SBCTION 482 OF THB CODB OF CMMINAL PROCBDXyRE. 1973 Acoearaace: Shri Manoj Paraajape, coiiasel for tfae petitioaer, ORALORDBR (17.06.2009) The chaUenge ia the present petition is to the order dated 22.4.2009 passed by fhe Additioiial Sessioas Judge, Bemetara, Distt. Durg in Cr. Rev. No. 17/2007. Bythe order dated 22.4.2009, the revisioxial court has dismissed fhe revision as filed by fhe petitioner a^inst the order dated 28.2.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistmte First Class, Bemetara in M.Cr.C. No. 148/2005 awarding Rs. 300/- per nionfli as niaintenaace to fhe respondeat • Learaed counsel for fhe petitioner contends fhat fhe respondent is not fhe legaUy wedded wife aiid fherefore she is not entitiled for aay maintenance, It has beeai submitted ^ ^^*>i. . .... .^ .^^. that in rcspect of marriage/ m particular, as per Hlmdu rights, no legal evidence has been given by fbe rcspondeixt Fixrther, it has been submitted by counsel for tfae applicaiit fhat fhe respondent has failed to piove that she is not ia a position to mauitaia herself aad fhe husband has siifficient ineaiis to meet out the xnamtenaace ainount of fhe respondent It is also siibmitted fhat one Puniya Bai is the jBrst legally wedded wtfe of the appUcaat and Uierefore second mamage of fhe appUcant with tfae respondent caiinot be accepted ia fhe eye oflaw, I have gone fhmugh tfae judginent of fhe coiMls below aad perused fhe entire material as filed by fhe petitioaer, The grounds as raised by the petitioner has xio force aad I fiiid no infirmily or illegalily in tfae orders of fhe Q^urt below. Bofh the Courts below have passed well reasoned speakiag order based on fhe evidence lead by the party, The petition has no substaace aad is accordmgly disxmssed at fhe motion stage itself Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge