HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONERS <-;. KB8PONDENT PETITIONER RESPONDBNT R- Cr-M.P.No. 26/2011 1. Khirobai, W/o ChhabUal Netam, aged about 28 years, 2. Ku. Seema, aged about 5 years, D/o Chliabflal Netam, Through nattual guardiaa inother Khirobai Netam, aged about 21 years, Both R/o viU^e DularpaU, District Mahasamuud (C.G.). VERSUS ~ ChhabUal Netaru, S/o PadTiiuIal, aged about 26 years, Caste -Gond, R/o ViUage Dularpali, District Mabasamuiid (C.G.). KND Cr.M.P. No. 27/2011 Ku. Seeina, aged about 5 years, D/o Chhabilal Netam, thiough natural guardian. inother Khirobai, W/o Chhabilal Netani, svged about 28 years, R/o viUage Dularpali, District Mahasaniund (C.G.). VEI^US Chhabilal Netam, S/o Padumlal, aged about 26 years, Caste -Gond, R/o ViUage Dularpali, Distnct Mahasaiuund (C.G.). PBTITION UNDBR SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCBDURB. (SB sHon'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Shri Raghvendra Pradhaa, Advocate for the petitioners (inCr. M.P. Nos. 26/2011 &27/2011) . Respondent not noticed, ORAL- ORDER (Passedon 17/02/2011) 1. By bofh fhe petitions i.e. Cr. M.P. Nos. 26/2011 & 27/2011 ffled under Section 482 of fhe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (ia short 'the Code') agamst the order dated 12/11/2010 passed by First Additional Sessions ^- Judge, Mahasamund iu revision case Nos. 24/2010 & 22/2010 are beiug disposed ofby this common order. Vide aforesaid orders impugned First • Additioual Sessions Judge, Mahasamund while afBmung flie order relating to denial of inainteaaace to petitioner Khirobai on the ground ftiat she is not legaUy wedded wife of respondent and has reduced fhe maiatenaace from Rs. 2000/- to Rs. 1000/ - per inonfh to petitioner Ku. Seeina, aged about 5 years. 3. As per case of the petitioners on fhe contingency of pregnaacy petitioiier Khirobai has xaamed wifh respondent after executing soine agreeinent thereafter petitioaer Ku. Seema was bom out of wedlock of petitioner Khirobai and respondent. Respondent is not having sufficient means for not Biaintamm.g fhe petitioners who are unable to mam.tam themselves. On fhe aforesaid ground petition for niaintenaace for Rs. 1000/- per m.0ntti each was ffled by the petitioners. Wbile reptying the petition filed on behalfofthe petitioners, resppndent has deiiied the aUegation inade ia the application aad has specificaUy alleged fhat petitioner Khirobai is not & wife of respondent aad petitioner Ku. Seeiua is not a daughter of respondent. Respondent was not haviag aay relation wifh petitioner Khirobai. 4. After providiag an opportunily of hearing to ttte parties, leamed Judicial Magistrate Firat Class, SaraipaU, District Mahasamund has awarded ruaintenance of Rs. 2000/- per r&onth to petitioner Ku. Seema but has derued the claun of niamtenance of petitioner Khirobai on the grouad fhat durmg subsistence of first inarriage of respondent wifti Vimla Bai a&y claiin ofvaUd marriage by petitioner Khirobai is not legaUy possible, sanie were chaUenged before fhe First Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasainund. \ By bofh the petitioners separately by filmg revision case Nos. 24/2010 & 1 ,>•—°«.<<,;. A "<it "% ^^1 ay^/ s;<a.sa.y^ ^- 22/2010 learaed First Additional Sessions Judge, Matiasaniund has affirmed tiie order relating to petitioner Khirobai aad faas modi&ed tiie order relating to petitioner Ky. Seema. 5. Shri Raglivendra Pradhaa, learaed counsel for fhe petitioners is heard. 6. Order uupugned aad record ofbotb the Courts below perused. 7. As per evidence adduced ou behalfofthe parties speciaUy the evidence of petitioner's witaesses namely PW3 Raghubeer Siugh Diwaa, PW4 Jauakram and Vimla Bai legaUy wedded wife ofrespondentwho is aUve. In fhese circumstauces, botii the Courts betow have not coxnruitted aay illegalily in denying the mamtenaace of petitioner KIurobai on the ground fhat petitioner Khirobai is not legatty wedded wife of respondent. 8. As per quantuia of laaiatenance awarded to petitioner Ku. Seema and its reduction is concemed, petitioner herself has claiined for iiiaintenance of Rs. 1000/- per monfh. Trial Court has awarded iiiaintenaace of Rs. 2000/ - per monfhL which has not been prayed by the petitioners, sauie was modified by the revisional Court. Wbile reduciag the maintenaiice awarded to petitioner Ku. Seema to the tuae of claim. of m.ainteriEuace prayed ia origiaal application revisional Court has not comiuitted aay fflegality. Consequently, botli fhe petitions i.e. Cr.M.P. Nos. 26/2011 & 27/2011 are devoid of inerits, sauie are liable to be dismissed aad are hereby disiuissed. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge •WWuwswiWimwiwiHiiainnwww^^