^v^ Petitioners ResRondent HI^H COUftT OF CHH^THS^RH AT BIU*.^>UR Cr.M.P.No.Slg ef 2007 1. Prabhawati Wife of Motilal, aged about i8 years, Occupation Hou^^wife; 2, Neeraj Son of Motitei, aged about 1 i years; Minor, Tlirough his naturai guardian mother Prabhawati, Wife of Mo+ifol; Both are caste of Panika, Resldent of Viiiage Dhur, Police Station Odgi, Tahsii Surajpur, District Surguja (C<&) Versus Motibl son of Somaru, aged Qbout 30 years: Occupation bnver and Sachsv, Jai Gr^ian Vibhag, Resident of Singri, PoSice Station and Tahsil Pratoppur, District Surguja (C.6.) (PETTTION UNbER SECTTQN 482 Of Cr.P.C.) (SB: Hon'bleMr.T.P. Shormo, J.) AAr. V.^Pandey, counsel for Ifie petitioners. ORDER ^Gssed ©n31st ^t^ust. 2009) 1, Thss petition is djrected against the order dated 7.5.2007 pas-^d by the Second Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Surajpur, in Crimina! JSeyision No.16/2009 affir'tnmg the order dated 20.10.2004 possed by tfie JsxliciaJ Magistrate First Ctass, Surajpur, In Crlmtan} MJC No.57/2002 whereby learned JudicJaJ ^agistrate First Ctess has dismissed th@ application for moJntenance fited foy the petittoners when It was not contested by the respondent. 2. Leamed coun^st for the petitloners ^ubmlts that the present respondent was e?<-parte before the trial Court. No notice has been served to the respondent before the revisjona! Court, byt 1+?e Court B/- -2-- bebw hos not considered the unchaltenged evidenc^ of the petltioners <xnd thereby committed tllegality. 3. I have perused the order impugned o-nd records of the Ceurts below. 4, The tria! Court has proceeded ex-parte agalnst the respondent and has decided the case ey-porte against the respondent, but after taking into consideration the evidenc^ adduc^d on behalf of "t^e petitioners; tha tria! Court has dismissed the petition though the trial Courl" was not under obligation to oj!ow the opplication even ex-parte jn case unless the petitioners proved the essentjal ground of their cJaJm. Mainly the apptjcation has been dismissed on the ground that after fjfmg of reply by the respondent making specific Qllegation that the petitioner No.l is not his wife and petitioner No.2 js not his son, the petitbners have not odduced any eyidence to show that she was marrjed to the respondent and petitioner No,2 te legjtirpate child of the respondent. $tatem@nts of the petttioner*s and her witnesses reyeafed that they haye not adduced specific evidence of their marr'age. 5. On due considemtion of the evidence addyced on beho(f of the petitsoners and tQklng into consideration that the provisions of Sectiwi 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is beneficial pr^vjsjon with a view to saye the dependants from destitution and vagrcincy, the petition js albwed. The order impugned Is hercby qyashe^!,The matter Is remitted to the JudicJal Magistrote First CJQSS, &srajpur with Q directbn to issue notice to If^e respondent and provide an tpportajnity of adducing evjdence to both the parties and decide the case afresh. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge