.0 ^ WH^tT %»JS®1% '7ST ^l^!<y1<^, ^Tll'H^Ko, [®l<rtl'(-llj,< . G^^-^^o.^<5/°?_ [ ^"^••"•••-"•'•"••""••••••"•••"•""•••••TR, 200 / . ^T ^P^ ^^1 ^lt^T' ^?^^ 3T[^T 'q^R" (^t^^?) ^OTR^tN^i^ SB: HON'BLB DHIR^DRA MISHRA. J. PE-T!TIQNBRS 2. 3. VBRSU^ KESFONDENT 14-n-^)u7 Sliri P. P. Saliu, Advo^ Shri Sanjay S. Agrawap., Heard. 2, By this petition undejr have questioned the legaUt^ March, 2007 passed ia Crin|iini chl^^i^ 'RR^ff ^ 'fe^rt <f^^<< ^3^T3T?^T |Sm.t, Poouani Vaishiiav (% Puniinia ^vaislinav, aged about 26 years, wife of IShri Suuil Kiunar VaJshnav |Prashu @ Shikhar Vaishnav, aged about |04 yeaTS, son of Shri Sunil Kuraaj: Vaisiuiav [Ku. Gungun Vaishnav, aged about 02 ^ears, D/o Shri Siinil Kuinar Yaishuay fThe petitioners No. 2 and 3 are minors, |through tlieir natural guardiaii raotlier E3mt, Poonani Vaishiiav wife of Shri Sunil IKumar Vaishnav (^ll are rcsidents of near Talisil Chowk paaigaon, Police Station and TaiisU jLormi, Distt. Bilaspur (CG) punil Kumar Vaishnav, aged about 33 ^ears, S/o late Shri Girvardas Vaishva, jResident of Old Sai'kaiida, Daihaiipai-a pilaspur, Distt. Bi!aspur (CG) Of&ce of ^ssistaat Cordmissioner, Central Excise puties aiid Taxes, near Nehru Chowk, pilaspiu', Distt. Bilaspur (CG) ate, for fhe petitioners, 1, Advocate for the respondent, r Section 482 of Cr.P.C, fhe petitioners and eorrectaess of the order dated 12m dnal Revision No. 222/'2006 prefen'ed by ^T f^iw ^^i^1^I^^ ff TF w(mi- ^Ni^t -3~5ET -qi^jcn^, ^Tl1^^(o/ [®S<r81^y 6^. ^-9- ^o.^-^/^ ^•r---""---"""-"---'"-^'200 3n^?T xra^ (<i^i^^) i^TW^^i^r^i' the petitioners and Criniiiia^ respoudent whereby the le^ (FTC) MungeU has rejected and partly allowed the c^i enhaacecl the aiiiount of and 3 from Rs. 1000/- to| prayer for graat of mabitena|ace Revision No. 310/2006 preferred by the mied Second Additional Sessions Juclge Uie criminal revision of fhe respondents iaiiaal revision of the petitioners aad aiatenaace ia. favour of petitioners No. 2 Rs. 1250/- each, however rejected the to petitioner No. 1-wife, m^in 3. The oiily grouud i4i petitioners is that fhe anioiilnt favoiir of petitionera No.2 sjj aged about 5 aad 7 years ajjid tlie saine is not sufficient education of Uie two petitioDJe 4. After talsiag io.to con leamed Additional Sessiou; petitioner No. 1 aiid also awarded as mamtenaDLce to and 7 years old, I do no impugned order warraiitiiig 5, The petition beuig dev aud it is hereby dismissed. chl^^H ^i^ff ^? 'fe^t <F^^i< ^S?f^T3?lt^T ged by the learaed counsel for fhe of maiatenaace ofRs. 1250/- eacli in ad 3 is iaadequate as boUi of them are looktag to tlie prevailmg cost of livin^g, for meeting the bare necessities of the ^rs, cotisidering ^iderations the reasons assigned by the Judge for rejectmg the prayer of fhe that Rs. I250/- each has been petitioners No. 2 aiid 3 who are just 5 fiiid any illegaiily or iiitlroiity ui the ikiterfercnce under Section 482 ofCr.P.C, ^id ofsubstaiice deserves to be disiaissed Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge