H1GHGOURT OFCHHATTISQARH AT BSLASPUR V Cr.M.P.No.97 of 2006 ADplicants \ Kiran Bala (Smt.) W/o Vjjay Kumar Soni, Aged about 41 Yrs. Resident of Sadar Road Balodabazar Distt Raipur Shhattisgarh -c 2. ^ Kumari Roshni D/o Vijay-Kumar Soni, Aged abouf 19 Yrs. Resident of Sadar Road Baiodabazar, Distt Raipur Chhattisgarh. Versus Respondent tl. Vij^ K.umar Gupta S/o Ramla! Gupta Aged about 50 yrs. Resident of Aama Sattibazar Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) (PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE) (SB ;Hon'bte Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) DrQ'zcs"* "resen:: Shri Prakash Tiwari, counsel for the appiicants. Shri Vivek Chopra, counsel for the respondent. ORAL ORDER (Passed OR 31st Ju!y, 2009; This petition is directed against the order dated 25.5.2006 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazaar, in Criminal Revision N0.223/2005 affirming the order dated 13.6.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Ciass, Batoda fiazaar, in M.J.C.No.115/99 whereby learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has dismissed the application filed by the applicants under Section 125of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Code') fbr maintenance who is wife and daughter of the respondent ^. ^s; Sl' 2. The order is challengsd on the ground that the Courts below have not considered the substantiai question that present applicant No.1 is not having any .sufficient means for her maintena.nce and dismissedthe applieation. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants vehoroently argues that present applicant No.1 is legally weeded wife of the respondent having no sufficient means for her maintenance, but the respondent is having sufflcient means for maintenahce but not maintaining her, therefore, she is entitlect for maintenance. t.earried counsel further submits that present applicant No.1 has not admitted that-she is owner 6f the Drooertv left bv her deceased father where she is 1 1 1 1 A ^- presently residing. Learned counsel ateo submits that the burden is cin the respondent to prove that oresent applicant No.1 is owner of the property and having sufficient income for her rr^aintenance. 4 Qn the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supported the order jmpugned and argues that originally house situated at Baloda Bazaar was owned by father of applicant No.1 and after death of father ofappticant No.1 in the month of December, 2001 , property was succeeded by present applica.nt No.1 and applicant No.1 is having sufficient means to maintain herself. Presently she js coyncillor and has also contes^ed the election. Applicant No.1 is not unable to maintain herself, tt M 5. ! have heard counsel for the parties and perused the order jmpugned and records ofthe Courts below. u, 6. From perusal of the statement of applicant No.1, it reveals that she is residing in her parental house and her father died in the year 2001 and after death of her father, property was succeeded by her. 7. After appreciating the evidence especially the statement of applicant No.1, the Courts have declined to award the maihtenance to the g.pplicants on the basis of the statement of applicant No.T.The Courts below have not committed any illegatity in declinmg to award the maintenance to the applicants. 1 do not flnd anv force in this oetition . 8. Consequentty, the petitiort deserves to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. ' ' Sd/- T.P.Shayjma Judge ] 1 1 i ^.