II THS aiQS C00RT OF JI3BIGATrog 13' BIL1SP®](CH@lt3tHi©iai. c^ •^^(T^ GBfiffiMI. KETOSIOH K.^^-- ^31^g2 ippi-TGjm: ^':y:::>"^°1 .4^f". ..-•" '^...^^:> y-:'c"-^:y' \^-..>'' ..»lt' -^ NOlT-APPI.ICa^T: Abdul Saliia, spn of AMul Ra^ aged aboiat 32 years, worfcing as Briyer, Ghiriiiiri O^en Cast' eplliery, restdent of Chiriia&ri GollleTy, P.S. eMriBtiri, presently residing C/0 2ah: Hussain, pay load pperator , residerat of Pondi eolliery, P.0. Ppndi eolliery, TahsBanendragarb, Bis-fc: Korea (Chhattisgarh). fers^ts'1 Abdul Rauf, son of Abdul Bajak, aged about 66 years, retired eolliery efflployee, resident of ^odripara, Kurasia eolliery, P'.S. CMriiairl, ?ali: MaiaendragarM, ©ist:Korea (G&hattisgarh). GaXMIHai. SEVISKiH-GT/S ^97 an<l W1 W'^gim-JN GQ©Esi 197% c^ XI-HC—78 t€ WH^fT^NI^ -3~oET ^j^Kn^ ^Til^^^ 1^<rl!^lf( ^....&..s^.....^^^200^ ^V <tra^? (^3^?) W^T "^T K^i^ ^rqr 3?f^T^HT^ ^\ ^^TTW??f^T ^?K¥f Zl/II^OOZT^ dated 13.03.2002 passed by the dated 26.05.2001 passed by Manindragarh, ^Wfepfr? 'W^ff ^f fetSt iRsf^H ^^tRPT3??^T Hedrd Shri R.P. fiondharva, le^rned counsel for the applicoint. The applicant has in this r^vision petition chailenged the order learned AddWonai Sessions Judge, Manindragarh, in Criminal Revision lpo.121/2001. arising out of the order !•< , in M.Cr.C.No.l the learned Judicial Ma9istrate, claiming maintenance of Rs.4,000/- learned Magistrate by his or The respondent herein filed 4 p^tition under Section 125 of CrP.C. per month from the appliccxnt. The r dated 26.05.2001 rejected his application. Thereafter, the ^espondent filed Criminal Revision No.121/2001 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Manindra9arh. The learned Sessions Jud9e allowed t^e revision petition and directed the dpplicant to pGiy Rs.1,000/- per monfi as maintenance to the respondent. The respondent was working |n S.E.C.L. He was declared medically unfit. The opplicant was given com^assionate appointment in place of the respondent and the alle9ation is jt+iat the applicant has neglected to maintahi him. XI-HC—78 's'si'^i^n^T, ^xii^Ko, [^<ni^tj,< ....^.^, WR??iT ^P?T^——-••——••••••••----—T-^ 200 2- ^T^T ^^K ('^3^9) ^^ ^T fe^Joh 'cl^H 3?T^T^l?N>' Brajesh/Soma ^c?TW?rf?^ 3H^T oabd Having re9ard to the facts fact that the applicont is workinjg income, the impugned order pass^d directing the applicant to pay RsJ the respondent is just and proper.| opinjon that this revision petitionj rejected. <=hi^f<>i^1Tl '^H<riT ^* fe^t T^T^R ^ 3TfTO3H^T circumstances of the case and the in S.E.C.L. and earning sufficient by the learned Sessions Judge, |,000/- per month as maintenance t6 In the circumstances. I am of 1+ie is liable to be rejected and Jt is Sd/- Chief Jusdce