L BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARB AT BILASPUR (CHHAmSGARHl Cr.M.P. No. & (3 b ^f^Oll PETITIONER p.R.Na. ...^^•r-- Amar Singh S/o Prem Singh, caste Gond, aged about 29 years, R/o Village- Amlibahra, '.^w^-- ssi1s ncri.^4--"" p-s-- Pasan, Tahsil-Katghora, i>«;fi..——-—r Distt. Korba(C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. Kadam Kunwar W/o Amar Singh, aged about 24 years, Caste-Gond, 2. Sonu D/o Amar Singh, aged about 3 years, Minor through- Guardian Mother- Kadam Kunwar W/o Amar Singh Gond, Both R/o Village- Bilaidand, P.S. & Tahsil- Marwahi, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) PETITION UNDER SECTION 48^ OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE sn^i'wfeN; wnsn^rwTO; '?ST "4|tf|i»|q^ ®Tllyi(o,fs)ctiy^< ^,.....QbT.5A^..-...V^?..;....^6..f.../[! I an^l'^RRr (li°l[-l«i<cLT) •^200 TRfiwaferan^i SB : Mon^ole Shri Manindra Molian Shrivastava. J. 1>]<<ICT<ill *il*«t'T'^fe:Zl ^fsi^Il ^ SJfipT 3n^;1 U-10-2011 Shri Dhirendra Mishra. coi<nsel for the petitioner. Heard on admission. This petition has been filei|i by the petitioner assailing legaiity and validity of order dated 20/07/2011 bv Which the revision nted against the order of maintenance has been dismissec| affirming the order of maintenance. Learned counsel for the p^titioner submits that the award of maintenance to the wife and to the child is not justified under ihe iaw because the wife left the matrimoniai house and she is nc# iiving with her husband. He further submits that once there has been separation ^ven though there is no valid divorce between the parties and they are tiving separ^teiy, the Court below was not justified in awarding maimenance. A perusal of the impugn^d order shows that the iearned Revisional Court has affirmed the order of maintei|iance taking into consideration that the Magistrate has awarded maintenance by re|cording nnding of fact that the wife is not residing with the husband and she has beat her in intoxicated condition ^tated in her evidence that the petitioner used to I and she was aiso beaten when she was carrying pregnancy. in the opinion of this Cojjrt, the reasons which has been assigned by the revisional Court and the conslcleration of materia! evidence on record show that the finding recorded by the Ma^istrate that the wife te justified in iiving separateiy, is not without evidence nor carl respectively (tota! amounting tcj be said to be based on irreievant or extraneous materiai and further taking into ^onsideration that the wife as weii as the child have been awarded a meager am^unt of maintenance of Rs.500/- and Rs.300/- Rs.800/-) which cannot be said to be exorbitant ?g, Ti.T.iniiiR—FS;,-K)—2/2ui !—1,50,000. ^fFITcTq, ^rftWTg, rq^K-iy^ ^'Y-V^Vj.3. V^O •• (aCfCi/U "'v' gn^T 'q^? ('^3^s?) a^r^ifew WI 3li^I •gitrtq; 'CRfiw^iteisn^i ^ Deepii considering that the petitioner do^s not sufrer from any disabiiity and it is presumed that he is earning at lea^t Rs.3000/- per month, there is no basis for interference by this Court with the bward of maintenance in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC in that viewof the matter, 1 antnot inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Court below. The petition is ttterefore dismissed^ Sd/- °ti'<<I<n<ft<iFRTt' ^i fe'st ^^R ^affin 3(1^1 Man^^S Sbrivastava iudge ^q d>a-i iBniI5Rt, fSRt^ilig—[.•S/I40—2/20' l' -t.50,000.