/ Petitioners RespQndent Non-appltoant HjGH COURT OF CHHATTiSOARH AT BiLASPUR Cr.!W.P.No.30of2011 1. Bal Kunv.'ari Bai wife ot Gajsndro Pafra, Caste Jhora, aged 26 years, R/o Tuba, P.0. Kandaibahar, P.S. Farsabahar, Tahsii Kunkuri, District Jashpur (C.G.) 2. Minor Gsyatri D/o Gajedro Patra, aged 6 years two months, caste Jhora, R/o. Tuba, Through : natural guardiaii rnother Petitioner No.1 Ba! Kunwari Bai wife of Gajendro Caste Jhora, Wo. Tuba, Tahsii Kunkuri, Dlstrict Jashpur Versus Gajendro Pafra, son of Kura Patra, Caste Jhora, aged 30 years, R/o Tuba, TahsS! Kuntairi, Distriet Jashpur (C.G.) (Appiication under Ssction 482 of She Cr.P.C.) (SB: Hon'bie Mr. T.P. Shamsa, J.] Mrs.Hamida Siddique, counsei forthe pstinoners. Mr.J.K.Saxena, counsei forthe respondent. QRE»R(ORAU (Passed on 17'" Sviarch, 2011) 1. By this pstition under Section 482 of ths Code sf Crimina! Procedurs, 1973 (for short 'Code'), the petWonere havs chaiienged iegaiity and propriety of the order dated S.12.2010 passed by ihs Additionai Sessions Judga, Jashpur at Kunkuri in Criminat Revision No.17/2007, rsversing ths order dated 10.11.2006 passed by the Chief Judiciai iViagisfrate, Jashpur in Crimina! M.J.C.?-to.113/01, whsraby ieamecf Chief Judicial IViagistrate has awarded maintsnance of Rs.500,'- per month to each of the petitioners, Whiie reversing ths order of the Chief Judidai gistrate, the Additiona! Sessions Judge, Jashpur at Kunkuri has arrived at a finding that present pstitioner No.1 bas faiisd te prove marriage and maritai reiation with the respondsnt; thsrefore, thsy ars not er.titied for ma!r,tenance. 2. As per case of the petstioners, peiitioner No.1 was married to fte respondent and as a resuit of maritai reiation she gavs birth to pstiiione!- No.2. the respondent has negiected the petitionsrs. The petiiioners ware not abi maintain themseives and th®rsspondsnt having sufficisnt means was mainSaining them. On the aforessid ground, appiication for mainteriaRce Section 125 of the Code of Criminai Procedure viss fSied oy Sie pgtitioners. fiiing repiy the respondenf has denisd marriage, retatio". and paternity and specificaiiy aiieged thst hs is not having any relaiion with fhe petitionsre. Aftsr t 10 rsot has r1, S ^ t2^'%/' 91 ^.^s^' ,y ^ ^ <1^..' /-t -2-- afforaing an opporfunify <rf hearing So the parties, isamedi Chief iyiagistrate has awardsd msintenance of Rs.500/- p©rmonth to sach of the petitioners. Same was chaiienged before the revisional Court and by rsveFsine the order of the Chief JudiciaS Magistrate the revisionai Court has arrived st s finding that petitioner No.1 was not wife of the respondent. 3. I have heard iearned counsei for the parties, perused ths order impugned, order of the triai Court and records ofths Courts beiow. 4. Learned counsei for the petitioners submits that the respondsnt has denied fte entire aiiegaiion of the petltioners. The rsspondent has aiso denied reiaSor.ship witti petitionsr No.1 but by giving suggestion to <fte petitioners the rsspondent has taken spec;if!c defence thst after his iiiicit relation with pettioner No.1 they were married and at ths instance of eommur.ity, petitioner No.1 want to th8 house of tt'.e respondent for discharging her maritai obiigation. His fr/ro witnssses Chaitan Patra anc! Marsei Ekio have admitted signaftirss over ttie dociiment Ex.P/2. Leamsd counsel further submite that ihis suggesfion and staten-sents of witnesses of the respondsnt are sufficient to demoiish defence of Sh®respondent andestabiish and provethe case ofths pstiSonsrs, butths revisionai Court has not considersd the aforesaid evidence and thereby committsd iiiegality. 5. On the other hand, leaned counse! for the respondsnt opposss ths petition and submits that even as per aiiegation and evidenc®of petiBoner she wentto ihe house of the respondent in the moth of August, 2000 and as a result of marita! relstion with the respondent shs gave birth to petitioner No.2 !R fts month of June, 2000. This fact aione is impossibis and is sufficient to demoiish ths siaii'R of the petitionsrs. Learned counsei further submits Uiat ths present respondent has not admitted any reiation with petitioner No.1 and pstitioner No.1 was under obiigation to prove the fact that petitioner No.1 has married with the respondent and pstttioner No.2 is iegitimate chiid ofthe respondent, butthe petitjonsrs have not proved the aforesaid fact, Sierefore, the revisional Court has rightiy dismisssd the ciaim of ttie petitioners. 6. in the present case, th®respondent has dsnled aiiegation of fte patffioners. He has aiso denied reiafion with the petitioners, but in cross-e)aminstion of petitioner No.1 by putting specific suggestion the rsspondent has taksn defsncs that when petitioner No.1 became pregnant then shs was marrted to the respondent and at the instance of community she was married to the respondent and community members handed over petstionsr No.1 to the respondsnt where she resided for about two years. This defencs by way of suggestion is sufRctent to estabiish the fact that the respondent v/as having iliicit relation with petitioner \ No.1 and at the instance of community members the rsspondsnt has married with pstitioner No.1. 7. Definitely, ftere is discrepancy in the statement and pieading of the petitioneis who haci put thumb imprsssion in her appUcation. initsaliy in para 4 of her appiication month of 'ner return to the house of the respondent was August, 2000 and month of delivery of petitioner No.2 \ws Juns, 200Q, but by oraer dated 22.12.2003 the petitioners have amended para 4 of their appiteation and have amended her date of retum as August, 1999 instead of August, 2000. 8. Evidence of petiiioner No.1 partly corroborated by signstures of witnesses of the respondent on Ex.P/2 and unsustainabto ciaim and defence of ths respondent is sufficisnt to prove ihe fact that petitionsr No.1 was married to th®respondent and petitioner No.2 is daughter of the respondent, aithough the petilioners have not proved her marriage andcustom strictty, but in case of ciaim oi' maintenance under Sectton 125 of ths Code of Criminal Procedure, strict proof of marrisgs is not necessary. Suggestion g'lvsn by fche rsspondent to petiBoner No.1 in hsr cross-examination is sufRcient to establish the aforssaid fact. 9. White reversing the order passed by the triai Court, the revisionai Court has committed iiiegaiity. 10.0ption to fiie revision was avaiiabie to the petitioners but Uiey have fiied psHtion under Seciion 482 of the Cocie of CriminaS Procedure, but oniy on ths ground Shat they are having aitemative remgdy their petition cannot be thrown. II.Consequentiy, the petition te allowed. Ordsr impugned p^sed by ihe Addittonal Sessions Judge, Jashpur at Kunkuri dated 9.12.20'iO in Criminal Revjsion No.17/2007 is hersby set aside and order dated •i0.11.2006 psssed by fte Chief Judiciai Magistrate, Jashpur in Criminai M.J.C.NoJ 13/01 is hereby restorsd. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge m.-