" T” N Criminai Revisiort uncier Seciion 19 (4) of the Famiw Courts Act. 1§84. Present : Shri Uttam Pandey, counsel for the applicant \ $hri Jitendra Gupta, counsei for the Respondents. ORAL SREER (Passed on 22““ July, m) With the consent of €ne parties, this criminai revision was heard nnalry at the admissien stage. 2. it is directea’ against the order dated 18.09.2007 passed in Caee No. 6Q/2007 by the 3'“ Aeditional Principai Judge, Family Ceurt; Burg whereby maintenance of Rs.'ISOOI- and Rs,1,000i- was awarded to non-applicant Net/wife and nen-appiicant/miner son. 3. $inee Amrika Bai had admitted in paragraph 4 cf her testimony that she was not divorced by her earlier husband Keshiai, $hri Jitendra Gupta. teamed counsei for the nen—appiicants did not deny that the order granting maintenance to the non-appitcant No.1/Amrika Bai was contrary to iaw 4, In View of the admission of Amrtka Bai and as held by this Gourt in Criminai Revision No. 264 of 2006 passed on 05.05.2009 {Ramkumar v. $mt Meena Sahu) only a iegally married wife can ciaim maintenance. Since the non-appiicant No.1 Amrika Bai was aiready married to Keshiai. she was not 4/w Iv *4Mm h‘ % %\\Qn é HHGH €6URT GF CHHAWISéARI—I AT BILASFUR Sinqie Bench : Hén’bie Shri Dilip Raosaheb De$hmukh, J. Cr. Rev. No. 57? of 20a? Revisianer : SaWant Singh, Slo Late Bahadur Sing, {Non Applicant) aged 55 years, Ric Camp-2, Chatai Quartet Near Gurudwara. RS. Chhaoni, Tah. & Distt. Durg (C‘G‘) Persona! No. 13933:}, Welder Dept. T & HLN.Bhilai, Steel Piant. Bhilai, Versus Respam§2iits 1‘ Smt. Amrika Bai, Wm Shri Satvant Singh, aged 45 yeam 2. Jaspai Singh, S/o Shri Satvan: Singh, aged <1 abaut 16 years (Minor) Thraugh: Natural Mather Smt Amrlka Bai. Both r/o Camp-2, Chatai Quaiter. Near Gurudwara, P.S. Chhaoni, The. & Distt. Burg (C.G.) 1r— y..— entitied to claim maintenance from the appiicant. The impugned order in sc far as it relates to grant ef maintenance to Amrika Bat is cantrary to law and therefore is set aside. ‘ 5, So far a$ grant of maintenance of Rs.1000/- from the date of order to Jaspai Singh (non-applicant No.2} who was aged 16 years, is concerned, on perusat of the record the evidence of Amrika Bai and Jaepai is duty corroborated by documentary evidence. The learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court rightly held that Jaspal Singh is the iileg‘rtimate child of the petitioner - Satvant Singh, ’ 6. Learned counset for the petitioner did not deny that the petitioner did not make any application for DNA. test. 7. in this view of the matter and in the facts and circumstances of the case, l am of the considered opinion that the impugned order in so far as it relates to grant of maintenance to Jaspal $ingh (non-applicant No.2) tili attainment of majority is welt merited and does not cali for any interference in exercise of revisionai jurisdiction. 8. Revision is partly aliowed. Order granting maintenance to non- appticant No.1 — Amrika Bai is set aside white affirming the order granting maintenance to non—applicant No.2 — Jaspal Singh. /J// // SA“ma mu? RAG Judge / é? Em