3. Hcand counsel for the applicant. 4. Onier impugned and mwnis ofthe Courts below perused; 'l‘lus ls a petltlon under Sacnon 482 of the CrP C 1973 for mvokmg mhemnt Junsd1cnon after dlsmmsal of the apphca1ion for mamtenance by the Chmf Jud1c1a1 Maglstmte, Kawardha and also by the Sess10ns Judge, Kawaniha The scope of interference 1n exermse of inherent Juns1dcmon 1s hunted. ,5. 6. In the light of afoxesaid legal proposition, I exammmi the recow. The Chief Judicial Magistmte mid Special Judge Kawaxdha has given a condiment find-Eng mm § for mung separately from her husband In the msfant case the apphcant’s father 1s a labour and non~apphcant is also a labour bur accordmg to the applicahon for mamtenance and statement of the appheant and hrs father non—appheant demanded fan cooler motor' cycle and cash of Rs 20 000] When both the pames are labour (daily ‘ wager) 1t. 1s dIfFlcult for them to pmmde fan, cooler, motor cycle andtcash af Rs. 20,ooo/-. x s! 5 n kum¢1£ 7. lt appears that%the: allegation made. on behalf of the applicant is not. reasonable and with a view to file the petition she hasvmad‘e the aforementioned allegation Fxcept this allegation there ie no ground liar her to live separately from her husband ’l‘he concurrent finding of the Courts below are not liable to be disturbed 1n exercise of inherent Jurisdiction m summary proceeding. I \ 8. 'l‘he applicant. may agitate the claim bemre competent forum. l do not fmd any substance. Consequently, the petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. T.P. SHARMA ‘ 1 r judge ‘ t Sdl- s k