HIGH CQLERT QF CHHATT1$GARH AT QELASPUR Crimina! Revksian NO 59 of 29.65 3B : Ham'bie Mr. TP. 5harma‘ J. CRWHNAL REWSEQN UNDER $ECT§§N 3SW§Q1 (3F THE QQDE OF CRiMiNAL PROCEDURE. 1973 Present: Mrr Sunil Sahu, coun$ei fer the petitioners ‘n’. N‘L. Soné, counse: for the resporadent. ORAL ORDER (Pas3ed on 13E August, 2098) This revision is directed against the order dated 6.122004 paesed by the First Additional Se$sion$ Judge; Mahasamund: in Criminal Revision No. 4812004 madifying the order dated 28:11:29Q3 paesed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Maheeamunri in Criminal MAI; Nor 122QQO3 whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has awarded the maintenance 9f Rsr 8001- per month to the petitinner No; 1. and Rs; SODA per month tr.) the petitioner Nor 2i but same was modified in. revision and ciaim of the petitiener No; 1 was rejected; 27 The order is Challenged en the ground that the revisional court has exceeded the jurisdiction veeted in it by rejecting the claim of maintenance of the petitioner No: 1 without there being any reasonable ground; 3: l have heard Mr“ sunil $ahu5 counsel for the petitioners and Mr‘ Nile $oni, counsel for the respondent and perused the order impugned and records of the courts below: Petitionem 1. Kamla Bai W/o Pitamber Sahuy aged ’JB years. 2. Net Ram $!e Pitamber Sahus aged ébeut 5 yeai's. Boih resideni of a‘t preseni Gudmaa’a, Mahasammri; Thana and Tahsd Mahasamund Distfict %‘u’3ahasamui~;d {CG}. Vs. ’ Resnondent Pitamber S/Q iate Birajo Ram Sahu aged 28 years, res§a’ent sf Viiiage f‘ uambna‘ka, . .. l Thane Arana. TahsH Arang, D§5trict Raipur (CG). 4. Learned coun$el far the petiticners $ubmits that the p$titioner No4 1 is legally wedded wife of the respandent Shg was $I.Abjected to cruelty by the {espondent She had tried her ieve3 beg ta re$olve the problem and hwy, she is residing separately from her husband and has ciaimed the maintenancei which wa$ aiiowed by the trial eeurii but by misappreciating the evide.ce avaiiable on record, the learned First Additionai Seeeione Judge has rejeeted the ciaim of the petitinner Nat 1‘ 5i On the other handi erder imeugned ie eupported on behalf of the :reepondent and argues that the petiticner No, 1 is having. no reaeonahie eauee for iiving eeparateiy from her husband Lei respondent; The respondent hae tried his level beet to cat! her hack. and eonvened caete meeting 3-4 timeei but the petitioner No, 1. is an arrogant and do not want to live with the respondent: She is resident in city (M amund) and doee not want te live with the. respondent in villager 6t in arder to anpreciete the contentions of learned counsel anpeering for the pertiee and to examine the legality, pronriety and oorreotnees of the order imnugnedt l have examined the materiai available on reoorcir PW— 1. Kamia Bei who is legally wedded wife of the respondent has stated that she wae euhiected to cruelty by her huehand and relatives of the husband She went to her parental house. community meeting was convened $he tiled application for maintenance; but eame hes been withdrawn after compromiee Again, the respondent started harassing; thereafter] she hes filed this present revision, Ami-2 Kartik. Ram has also supnorted the cese of the petitioners The respondent and. their witness has deposed the version of the netitioner Not 1 and specifically stated that the petitioner No. 1 does not want to live with the respondent The respondent has tried to his levei best to cell her beck. and convened caste meeting for 3-4 times). but the petitioner Not 1 has not come. The petitioner No. 1 has not attended anything He has not harassed or tortured the petitioner: The petitioner No, 1 herself has admitted in her cross-examination that she has not attended the caste meeting held at Bhaleshwar, According morass—examination of the petitioner Not 13 the respondent has tried to convene caste meeting at different piaoes who conceal the nrobiem, hut the oetitioner No. 1 has not supported. There may be domestic dispute between the parties; but same cannot he termed as harassment or torture or crueltvr The petitioner No. ‘i has given bald statement relating to harassment, torture and even tor ai ,ae demand. of dowry; which shows that the petitioner No, 1 is not keen or wiHing to reside with fhe respondent, 7) Qn careful sawiny and examination of the maierial available on recordi the {exri$iona! cnurt has rightly rejected the claim of maintenance Qf the petitioner No. ‘l by the order impugned in summery proceeding. The revisicnal court has not committed any illegality nor extended the jurisdiction vested in it The petitioner No. 1. may remedy her claim before appronriate forum 8: Consequently; the revieion being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and it ie hereby diemissed. sw- - 'T‘P. SHARMA Judge r i