yii Singls Bench IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OFCHHAmSGARH A^T BILASPUR APPitLCANT NON-APPUCANT Cr.M.P. No. ]S^~~/20Q6 Smt. Champadevi W/o. Sohan Lal Dewangan, Aged about- 37 years, R/o. - Chikhali Ward No. 3, Tah. & Disit.- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) t ;r. VERSUS Sohan Lal Dewangan S/o. Banjoo Dewangan , Aged about - 43 years R/o.- Rawanbhata College Road, Dongargaon, • Tah. 8s Distt.- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) APPLICATION U/S. 48Q OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE ^-^ lT*-s .. XI-HC-22 3ST ^||<<|di|, dT(1yll(i, Rldltiy 3TI^5T q^ch *<1*1MI gifllth_..~.K^.:.^.:..[.^)Q^ ^....yj..'..'........... g^. 200 f^p^ an^rw R-ii'tisn^r Sh1 ulgfl 3n^T?^ITWflf?cT +i'iifct41-f tii4<viTfffel^l <I»i<^i<. ^isil^H'sn^T 21.02.a007 Shri Ravi Maheshwari Counsel for the applfcant. Heard on admission. This petition is direct^d ^auast fhe order dated 21.7.2006 passcd by fhe Sessious ^u<(lge, Rajnaadgaon (C.G.) in Criminal Revision No.43/2006. The ^foresaid Criininal Revision was fited against the order of iateifim. maintenance dated 10.04.2006 passed by fhe.Judiciat Ma^istrate First Class, Rajnaadgaon in MisceDaneous CruamalCase|No.245/2005. A perusal of the iinpu|gned oider would show fbat by fhe said order dated IQ.04.'2006\ fhc leamed Magistrate had aUowed an iateriin mamtenauce to f4e tune ofRs.750/- per month to the appUcaat. Being aggrieved i^ifh fhe said order, the applicant has fQed a Cruniaal Revision fbf enhaaceiuent of fhe amount of uiterim inaintenauce, whicB was dismisscd by fhe Revisional Cour^agamst which, ttus pel^tion has been filed. It conies ia para 6 of fhe iiapugned order fade proved by fiting a pa^ fhat fhe luonthty income of the respondeut fix>m his salaiy i^ Rs. 12,000/-, This has been prima [ certiGcate. Apart frona. fhis, the appUcant aBeges fhat the re^pondent eanas Rs,2 lakhs per year 6-om. agricultural work aad ^lso earas Rs.3000/- per aionfh as the rent of different premise^, but nothmg has been brought on record to substaatiate these ]two incomes. The Revisional Court has observed vide para 10 coutents of the pay sUp wp of the iinpugued order that the |ild show fhat fhe res^gondent was (^^ft^) tXI-HC-22 TSf ^l^lcf-il, ES'Tn<1'IS, RlCll+iy B ^a<h ttTRPII shtllW 3il^i ^acn ^SE...^^ fSre% sn^r^iT f^rwsn^T OTR7Bf5?T eff^fLf 3n^rgTctTW:Bf?(T -2- ?ii^fi-i41-i ^i^dTiffeLifl <,l»itrii<. ^sri^q-sn^T getting Rs.9600/- per mon^h ia hand aad he also maintains 3 children, who are admitt^dfy residing wifh hiin. In these circuinstaaces, the Revision|al Court has confirmed the order of interira maiuteaance grante|d iu favour of the applicant to fhe tune ofRs.750/- per mon^i. In view of fhe above|, I do not find any irregularily or illegalily in the ordere passe^ by fhe two Coiuts below warraatuig interference under Section 4$2 offhe Code ofCrinunal Procedure. The petition has ao in^rit aad the same is disinissed at fhe m.0tion stage itself. Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge (iflA^ly?) i'1. .<"y ^4'