C RMP No 9/? _ " 1. VSmt Prema Bal :a: a W/o TUISI Ram‘Nai‘ 'Ageabout28 years ‘ _ Occupation Pott '-;’= er ESV} l ¢ i X ‘ - = g ¥ t "IS l mt Prema Ba ,-Both R/o VIII Mohra P S Basantpur ah &Dlst Rajnandgaon(CG) ‘ V ; " réT i PETITION UNDER SECTIGN 482 OFCODE OF RIMINAL IIEE %m¢h‘ Wm: mPETlTIONR ‘ § d‘ ah & Dust RaJnandgaO“ (CG i .T ) ‘ E HIGH COURT OF CHHA‘I‘TISGARH AT BILASPUR ‘ i i ‘ §SB ; : HON’BLE MR. ‘JUSFI‘ICE 'PRITINKER.DIWAKER, r cammmo. 127/2608 PETI'rImNERs Smt, Pnema Bai 8t. Another § ' r § Versus , i f RESPGNDENT r 1Gappu Ram r ‘ i Shrl Anand Shukla counsel for the peuuonem V § Shn Anup Majnmdar counsel for the respondent i § m'n'rzon uis 482 OF THE exp c._ ) . ORDER (13.04.2010) § The present peuuon tiled under Section 482 CrPC is ‘1 dnected agamst the order dated 6 11 2007 passed by the Dlstnct ‘ ‘ v Judge Rajnandgaon m Cr Rev No 114/2006 reversmg the order 3 dated 29 7 2006 passed by the learned Jud1c1a1 Maglsuate F1rst Class ‘RaJnandgaon 1n M Cr C No 364i2005 by WhJch the learned ' Maglstrate has awarded Rs 750 per month as mamtenance amount 1n favour of the apphcant NO 2 4 2. Bnef facts of the case are that on 11 6 2003 an apphcauon ’ * was h1ed by the apphcants under Secuon 125 Cr P C praymg that the apphcant NO 2 ls the megmmate ch11d of the non-apphcant and had taken buth on account of relahon between apphcant No 1 8n the non—apphcant It has been mentloned m the apphcatlon that é the apphcant NO 2 ls aged about one year and as the apphcants ‘ are not 1n a posmon to mamtam themselves Rs 2000 per month be granted as mamtenance to apphcant NO 1 whereas Rs 1 000 be granted 1n favour of apphcant NO 2 The non-apphcant hled reply of the above apphcahon denymg relauonshlp mth the apphcant No 1 and further denymg the fact that the apphcant NO 2 1s hls Illegmmate ch11d Accotdmg to the non‘apphcant the apphcant -, NO 1 rs a marned lady and her husband Tuls1 Ram \1s shll ahve . and out of theu' wedlock they have one daughter namely Madhu," who ls prosecutmg her stud1es 1n the government schooil a Acoordmg to the non-apphcant the apphcant NO 2 1s also t chJld of apphcant NO 1 and her husband Tuls1 Ram § ,. '3 hej A T Y) 'l 3. § } i é E E i ,‘ x L éln support of its case, the applicant No.1 has examine heyselif and one Bism Ram (Aw-2), Ramji (Aw-3), Dukhu Ram (AW-4) 'Whcmas the nén-appliéant has examined himself as N.é.w3‘.-1 and one Kn‘shna Kumar (N.A.w.-2). A i 4. ' in her statement, applicantvNOJ has stated that since la K , k werfe 45% years h@ she like was husband having and a%ir Wife. with She the has hon-applicant stated that on and accoun the of :heri physical relation with ‘the non~applicant she becam i pmgnant and gave birth to applicant No.2. She has stated tha theii ,reflations were known to the villagexs and .for which th pancihaiyat meeting was also called and on 21.7.2000 in presenc of reputed villagers the non-applicant has admitted the fact tha the familieant NO.1 is cariying 5-6 months pmgnancy h‘om hi and a cihild born hnm their relationship would not be illegitimat child This ayeement Ex.P/5 has been duly signed by the non— applicant and the other Villagers have also signed the same. The applicant No.1 has fuither stated that her hnancial condition i not as such whem she can maintain herself and maintain the appliCant No.2 and theiefore she is entitled for maintenance. She has further stated that in the document EXP/4 which is a birth i certinca‘teilof the applicant No.2, name of 'the non-applicant has been meiitioned as his fatherand likewise in the Kotwar register also the same [has been mentioned. 5. A.W.‘—2 Bisru Ram, Kotwar of the village had supported the case of the applicants and has Stated that applicant No.2 is the son of noin-applicant. Ramji L(A.W.-3) is the witness of the meeting and has stated that in the ' e meeting the non-applicant has admitted gthe fact that the applicant No.1 is carrying pregnancy [mam him Similar statement has heen made by Dukhu Ram who was presefnt in the meeting. Though the non—applicant, in his statement; has denied the’fact that the applicant No.2 is his son and has further stated that in the meeting his signatures were, l obtained fly fome. Krislma‘Kumaff,-(N.A.w;-2) has also made the ' similar statement by saying that there were no telations’between " the applicant and the non-applicant. After appreciating. the evidence, leained‘trial Court has come to the conclusion‘that the , ' d st y t e t e e t m e s : : j p: " 3’ applicant No.2 was born out of the relationship between the applicant No.1 and. non—applicant and therefore he is entitled for maintenance of Rs. 750 per month. In respect of applicant NO.1, her claim has been disallowed by the trial Court holding that she is not the legally wedded Wife of the non-applicant. 6. ‘ The revisional Court, while considering the evidence as adduced by the parties and while considen'ng the judgment of the trial Court has given the reverse finding by stan‘ng that even if the aldplicant NO. 1 and non-applicant were living as husband and wife their relations cannot be accepted because applicant NO. 1 has not divorced her hrst husband. The revisional Court has also admitted the defence of the non—applicant that his signatures are obtained in the document'EXP/S by force. Further, the revisional Court has held that the applicant No.2 has attained the age of majority and therefore he is not entitled for any maintenance. 7. After going through the orders of the trial Court as well as the revisional Court and the evidence adduced by the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the nnding as arrived by the revisional Court p are totally perverse. It is di$cult to\ understand as to onlwhat basis the revisional Court has stated that the applicant No.2 has become major. At the time of hling applican'on under Section 125 Cr.P.C. i.e. on 11.6.2003, the applicant No.2 was aged about one month and his date of birth as per the record is 2.6.2003 and therefore under no stretch of imagination on the date of passing of the order by the trial Court or by the revisional Court the applicant No.2 has attained the age of majority. 8. Similarly the revisional Court has erred in law in holding that the signature of the non-applicant was obtained by force in the document EXP/5. The revisional Court has inrther ignored the birth certificate EXP/4 85 P/S. Accordingly, order of the revisional Court being illegal is set aside and the order of the Magistrate is restored back. Sd/— 1 ir>\..yritink‘er Diwakpe: l ' Judge tip? v 1.1 a 7...,.a_..,...m,-",l_1; ' r j i 5 ‘: ,