HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Ramesh Kma s a PS l s/o Bhaduram aged about 30 year R/o Vlllag Rotm Lohandguda Dlstt. Bastar ( G) Versus Sm Gomba e of Ramesh Kuma aged abo 24 yrs, Caste Mu Damru Ra s/o Ramesh Kumar aged aout 5 year Mor through lH a Sm Gomba W/o Ramesh Kumar R/ 0 Vage Rotm P S Lohandud Dt Bastar (C G) OCEDURE Aggearance: Shri Subhash Yada counsel for the applican (1 009) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA J. N Heard on admissign. ‘ Petitioner Ramesh Kumar has f11ed this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Crmunal Procedure agamst the order dated 15 01 2009 passed 1n Cnmmal Rewsmn No 26/2008 whrch was filed agamst the order dated 04.6.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jagdalpur, in M.Cr.C.No.17/200’7, whereby a sum of Rs.1000/— was awarded as maintenance to respondent no.2 Damru Ram. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage etWeen the petitioner and respondent no 1 was not established and ’ mas also not estabhshed that respondent no 2 was the child bom '1 out of wedlock of petitioner and respondent no 1 @ or. mm. No.128lzoog PETITIONERI ur Com Elainant C RESPONDENTS t u w1f r ut ea nya m b s m t tl lga lst PETITION Uls 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PR v t ORAL ORDER 6 03 2 Cr. my. No.128/2009 I have gone through the oniers passed by the Magistrate as also the Sessions Judge. The Maglstrate and Sessions Judge have held that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent no.1 was not proved and for this reason, respondent no.1 was refused maintenance. However, they held it proved that respondent no.2 was the child born out of wedlock of the petitioner and respondent no. 1. The Magistrate has discussed about the paternity of respondent no.2 in Paras 7 8t. 9 of the order passed by him. Considering the discussions contained in the orders passed by the Magistrate as also by the Sessions Judge, there appears to be no scope for taking Qt a diiferent View by this Court. The provisions of secu'on 125 of Cr.P.C. are enacted for social justice and especially to protect the women and children as also the old and infirm poor parents and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution. The provision gives edect to natural and fundamental duty of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents so long as they are unable to maintain themselves. I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders passed by the Courts below. The petition has not merits; the same is liable to /Rao/