HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR Criminal Misc. Petition No.442 of 2009 APPLICANT: Smt Phoolkunwar W/o Mllap Das Age 53 years R/o Village Purena (Ten) Tah Dabhara Dlstt JanJgIr-Champa C G Versus I 4 i J i ' NONI-APPLICANT: Mllap Das S/o Balaram Age 58 years : i R/o Vlllage Patrapah PS Chakradhar I Nagar Dlstt Ralgarh C G i ‘ ’ i{Application under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code} Present; ‘ Mr Raj KumarGupta counsEIforthe petitioner e / Mr Vlneet Kumar Pandey, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr Ashlsh Guptay eounsel for the respondent r Single Bench: Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J f C. ORAL ORDER x . «_ (18 3-2011) 1 By thls petition under Section 482 of the CrPC the petitioner has challenged legality & propriety of the order dated 16 10 2002 passed by the 2”“ Additional Sessrons Judge Ralgarh In Cnmmal Revrsren No 220/2001 affrrmmg the order dated 16 7 2001 passed by the JudICIal Magistrate Frrst Class Ralgarh In Cnmmal MJC No 1/2001 whereby bothithe Courts below have dented award of maintenance to the petltroner on the ground that she Is not legally wedded wrfe of the respondent .2.» i have heard learned counsel for the parties perused both the orders . and records of the Courts below r 3. Although In the petition under Section 125 of the CrPC and In her: eVIdence the petitioner has deposed that she was married to thew respondent and has not alleged or stated relating to her first marriage I ’1' but the petitioner has speCIfIcally admitted In para 8 of her cross-: ‘ r exam‘Inatlon that earller she was married to another person of Village‘ 1 ‘ » Katra. Another wrtness Jagatdas (AW-2) has also admitted same thing; y in pa‘ra 5 of his cross—examination and has also deposed that first; husband of Kotmi has died. The petitioner has concealed her first: I marriage. She was under obligation to prove her lawful marriage with; ‘ ‘the ¥respondent and in case of her first marriage she was required to establish the fact that earlier she was married with another man, but after divorce or after his death she has re-married the respondent. However, the petitioner has not alleged or deposed to prove the aforesaid fact. Staternent of Jagatdas (AW-2) relating to death of first husband of the petitioner is of no help to the petitioner, unless the petitioner proves the fast that her first husband has died, that too before her marriage with the reEspogndent. ln these circumstances, both the Courts below have not cdmmitted any illegality in dismissing the claim of maintenance filed on beha f of the petitioner. l Consequently, the petition is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby l g \ dismi‘ssed. ’l ‘ Sd/ Es l T.P.SHA~RMA 3/ ” ‘ Judge -,r ' s f 3‘? l l L