-^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILA8PUR Cr.M.P. No. 114 of 2007 Petitioner Respoadeat Mamlal s/o SNfai aged about 38 years caste Uraon, r/o vUlage Koldiha, P.S. Jamagar, TahsU, Ainbikapur, Distdct Sarguja(CG) Versus Sura w/o MaiiUal aged about 32 years caste Uraon r/o village Lavaidih P.S. Darim.a, Tahsil Ambikapur District-Sarguja(CG) Appearance: Shn A.V.Shridhar, counsel for the petitioner. ORAL ORDBR (04.07.2007) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Heard on admission. This petition is directed against fhe order dated 23.6.2006, passed ia Cnmiaal Revision No. 235/2005 by fhe First Additional Sessions Judge, Sarguja, Ainbikapur(CG). The aforesaid Criinuial Revision was filed by the respondent against order dated 30.7.2005, passed ia Misc, Crmmial Case No.231/2002 by the Chief Judicial Magistorate, Sarguja, Ainbikapur, whereby the said Court had disinissed the appMcation of fhe respondent/wife filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Revisional Court, by reversiag tihe order passed by fhe trial Court, allowed the appUcation aad has graated inonthly mamtenaace to the tune of Rs.200/- to fhe wife/respondent, The brief facts are that the respondent/wtfe fUed aa appMcation under Section 125 Cr.P.C. agaiast the husbaad for graat of nionfhly inamtenaace on fhe ground of cruelty aad also on fhe groiind of contractmg a second laamage by the husbaad. The husbaad denied fhe contentions of the wife. The tdal Court disnussed fhe appUcatiou, holdiag fhat fhe wtfe could not estabUsh the cruelty as also the second inardage contracted by fhe husbaiid, c im ^^ Cr.M.P.No. 114/2007 ^ The revisional Court, after aaalysing fhe entire evidence adduced by the pardes, came to fhe conclusion fhat there was evidence on record to hold that fhe petitioner had kept one Maiigali Bal as his wife aad on this ground; the respondent was entitied to live separately from him aad to clami inaiatenaace. Holding so/ the revisional Court aUowed tlie appUcation aad lookiag to the iacoiae of the party, ordered for payment ofRs.200/- p,m. to fhe respondent/wife as tibie amount ofraonfhly niaiatenaace. A perusal of fhe impugned order as also fhe order passed by fhe tdal Court would show fhat fhe relationship between fhe parties was admitted aad as per fhe findiag recorded by fhe revisional Court vide para 9, fhe wife estabUshed that fhe petitioner had kept Mangali Bai as his wtfe aad for fhis reason, she was constrained to live separately aad after recording such finding only, fhe aforesaid amount has been awarded. I do not find any infirmity io. the order passed by the revisional Court, allowing fhe axaount of inaiiitenaace ofRs.200/- p.ni, to fhe respondent. The petition has no inerit, The saine is not worfh admission aad is dismissed at the motion stage i^self. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge sunita