a^ BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH A.T BILASPUR (C.G.l CT-V^.P^ M.CR.C.NQ. 7 7 /2006 3 BE! ^ PETITIONER ^$e c^\ -0^..< .^•-"- -'...'-- C^t.t- v\'.<^^'"^ \"e' <^^" -.*.& Smt. Chhanni Bai wife of Shri Hem Kumar Sahu, aged about 34 years, resident of viUage .Heerapur, P.S. and Tah Balod -Distt. Durg (C.G.)( VERSUS « RESPONDENTS 1. Hem Kumar Sahu, aged about 40 )-" years, son of Shri Ramauram Sahu, resident of Qtr No. (A) Utai Get, Raflway Ta£hgada,Bandh, Durg, Distt. Durg (C.G.) ^;r)--*^'[(3tf' 2. State of Chhattisgarh, through ^ L.^^ Ae District Magistrate Distt. ^.c"v~. . Durg (C.G.) ..^10 %•°* ___-_-__-.„___ / 2^ ° PETITION UNDER SECTIOIN 48'2 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 <'4l-h'0l. a %»1t J—o—-----^^.^^^^^, ^_^^—^ <? f.f ^i^.^T""?"-^ BBIilllH HI6H COURT OF CHHATTISSARH AT BILASPUR -\" SB : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRCTINKER &IWAKER CR^M^P,No_7LofZQ06 versus ^. Smt. Chhanni Btti Hem Kumcr Sahu and another- Shri r Sohu,counsel for the petitioner. ;te!, c.owse'i for respondent No. 1. w Sovsrdhan, P'- for the State/ resoonds Shri R.S. Sh"i Vci! No. 2; "TnM s.iKinpB /< Aft? n? TMP /•& o .•" *> < At^jtf %i/5'titi«*'s:r^ /h^ "FKfSt t^/i ir~i^ ^^.,r.,4rf, O R & E (30.04.2010) The Dresent petition fitecf under Saction 482 Cr.P.C. is a'irec-ed ogcmst the impuaned order dated 03-02.2006 passed by ^ciditionai Sessions Judge, Baiod, &ist. Durg in Cr. Rev. No. 458/2003 whereby whiie disiTiiSSing tbe reyision cs filed by the petitioner, the 'esrned r-eysswriG'i Court hcs offjrmed the order ond findind of the Judiciai Magistrate, Fir'stflass, Bafod in Misc- C". case No.520/02 rejecting the appifcation cs fiied by the petitioner under sectio?' 125 of tiie Coc'e of Criir-anai Pr-ecedur's for cira.it of irsnintenance.. 2. Brie.f facts of the case are that on 14.12.99 the Ciet'tioner- fi'ed an application under Section 125 of th.e Code of Criminai Procedure seeking mctintenance of Rs. 3QOO/- per month. It has been contented i by the petitioner that her warriage wws solemnized with the respondent in the ye'a" 1984 and out of wecjjoek she gcve birth to three chiidren. • She has stoted that two of her chiEd."en hcve dted &ric' onfy'one son namsly Sointosh Kumar is ai've cnd her son Santosh Kumar ^ s^wl;^;^-^i is ilvirsg with the respondent No. 1. According to the petitioner ssfter performing the second iriarriage, tiie respondent No. 1 's not keeping he" oind has stoted that if she iiyes wi-S+i him by force, she would be kiiied. She has stated -t+iot th®factum of the second marricge has been admitted by the reSpondent No. 1 in a society mesting on 14.11.99 and when she was threatened by tiie respondent No. S, she lodged the report before the jsplice on 23.9.1999. She has fur-rtier stated that in yiew of the aboye development she cannot liye with the respondent No. 1. She hcs aiso stated that the responderit No. 1 is earning Rs. 8,000 per month as he is working in the Department of Railway and has olso got 5 acres of agriculturcl iand f"om which he is eorning fts. 1 lakh per year. 3. In support of its case, +he petitioner has examined hsrseif and one witness namely Agarqhij Ram. 4. Denying 1+ie case of the pe+itioner it has been put fortii by the respondent No. 1 thoit the petstioner has left him of her own and she is ilvin9 sepor'ateiy without assigning sufficieiit reason. He subinits that petitioner is haying ilSicit relation with one Poscsn La! and therefore she Is not interested to live wlth hlw. TTie respondent No. 1 has stated thot he has not performed second marriage cnd he is stil! wiiling to keep the petitioner, even during the ar'gun-ient before ^nis court it has been stated by the counsel for the rsspondent 1+iat he is stiil wiiling to keep the petitioner. In support of his case the respondent No. 1 has examined himself, one Mohon and his son Samtosh.-Kumar. '^^- ..,,N: ..i-^.'.S.^ 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner has \ been iiterally thrown by the respondent No.1, she has no other option but to iive separately and lookin9 to the eyider'ce sdduced by her,the court below ought to have granted maintenance in her fovour. r»'. 7. On the other h<md opposing the contention of the petitioner it has been srgued by the counssl for •t+se respondent No. 1 that after <jf dus appreciation of +he eyidence,iiboth the Courts below hove given correct findin9 •t+iot the petitioher is iiying separateiy of hei" own witiiout there beinq sufficient cause and -Hierefore she is not entit'ed for anv mainteridnce. He fur1+ier subir.its thot even the son of •i+'.e petitioner and respondsnt No. 1 nameiy Santosh Kumar hcs categoricalty stated before -t+ie Court below that her mother has iilicit relation with one Poson Lal and his father hos not performed second marrioge. 8. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the materia! avoilob!®on record including orders of both the courts bel< courts below. 9. Though the case of the petitioner is •t+iot the r-espondent No.l has performed second marr'iage and therefore she is iivin9 ssporateiy but this aile9atlon has not been substm.tiaited by the peti+loner by !eadin9 Segc! admissible evidence. She has stated that in lise society meeting the respondent No. 1 has cdmitted the fact of second marnage but no such eyidence in this respect has been adduced by her. She hos a!so stated that she has lo'dged the "eport before the po'ice stotion but even 'm this respect there is no documentary ev'idence avaiioble on record. " '"18', ::ill (iS On the contrary, the eyidence of the respondent No. 1 appsars v^ to be more authent'c where he has proved his cose that •ths petitioner is Ijving separo.tely wlthout -rtiere bsing any sufficient couse. The sorl of the petitioner and the respondent No-1 nameSy Santosh Kumor has a!so supported tiie co.se of thg. respondent No. 1 by stating that hls father has not performed second iDai'ria9e, his behayiour' was good aid his mother is having i'licit relatiyi with one Poson Lal. '•i.'f. ..^,: 10. T/ie evidence adduced by fhe pcrtles has been eiabcrately considered by the iearned AAagistrate and a!so by the Revlsiona! Court and the concurrent findin9 given by Itie two courts below appears to be correct and the same cannot be interfered with in a petltion under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as it is undisputed by the parties that they are husband and wife, Itie court can siinpiy expect from the respondent No. 1 that he wH! make ali the endeayour to bring his wife wlth him and both 1+ie parties wiil take inter-est of each other. Pritinker Diwaker 3v^. -f-.... &*• ^.