@ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Cri. M.P. NO. 314 of 2010 PETITIONER Sharda Prasad VERSUS RESPONDENTS ' Pratima Dubey and another Shri Devesh Verma, counsel for the petitioner. PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. o’R D E R (07.05.2010) The present petition has been filed against the order dated 20.1.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa in Criminai Revision No. 33/2006 dismissing the revision filed by‘the petitioner, 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure initiated at the instance of the respondents, an ex parte order was passed against him on 20.7.2000 directing him to payv monthly maintenance of Rs. 2,000 and 1 ,OOO to the respondents respectively. He further submits that this ex pane order was assailed by the petitioner vide MJC N0. 7/2004 which however was rejected on 21.1.2004. He submits that {1" thereafter the revision filed before the Revisional Court also came to be dismissed by the order impugned. According to the counsel for the petitioner. the ex parte order passed against him on 20.7.2000 was not in accordance with law because his counsel did not appear on that day. 3. Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents filed by him. l 4. From the documents fled by the petitioner it is clear that in a l proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Crlmmal Procedure, . the petitioner had filed his reply to the main application as also to the @ #2” interim application. Petitioner has not disputed that the respondent No.1 is his wife and respondent No.2 is his daughter. Learned Magistrate has passed the order on 20.7.2000 after considering all the aspects of the case and granted a very reasonable maintenance in favour of the respondents. Similarly, the revisional Court also by its elaborate order impugned has considered all the aspects of the matter while confirming the order passed in MJC No. 7/2004 dated 21.1.2004. 5. i do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order impugned warranting interference by this Court in a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. l Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker .u Judge