BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER P.R.^^^s^- Q^Si».---l-':ty^' RESPONDENT Cr,ifl.P^No.J?8-?3 /2011 Balakdas, S/o Deendayal Dahariya, Aged about 24 years, R/o Village Thakuraintola, Tehsil & District-Kabirdham (C.G.) [wrongly mentioned in the impugned order as presently R/o village-Raveli] nch VERSUS Smt. Shashibai, W/o Balakdas, Aged about 21 years, R/o Village Thakuraintola, Presently R/o Village Raveli, Teh. & District-Kabirdham (C.G.) s?r?frX -'r^ \\ r'' PETITION UNDEft SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMjNAL PROCEDURE J XI-HC—78 3TI^I ^t K-<1<* H8TT STT^T ^i^r^ *n*iMi tb*nqi 3~S^ -^l^lci^, ®Tlly'!(o,filCtl-Hy ^^^^y.^.^^..b^ 200 SII^T ^^: ( l^cjt^ql^Ei) ^giw :Hf?tt sn^i <T>l<<I(n^1 'HH^ff ^' t?^ <f^i^i< i? aiRrcF 311^1 SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindi;a Mohan Shrivastava, J 13.12.2011 Shri AdU Minhaj, cou^isel for the petitloner. Heard on admission. '• This petition under Section 482 oftheCr.P.C. has been ffled by fhe petitioner aggrieved by order dated 27.6.2011 passed by fhe revisional Court bv whichl Magistrate, granting maint^nance to respondent, has been aiBrmed. AssaUing the correctpess and vaUdity of the order of grant of maiatenance, learned couijisel for the petitioner submitted fhat ffae Courts below have ordered |for grant of maintenance without properly appreciating the materia| evidence on record, particularly the testunQpy of respondent m| categoncaUv stated fhat i parental house. He furthe^ in the evidence, respondl are highly improbable ^ appreciated this aspect. order dated 13.11.2011 passed by fhe her cross-examination, whereia, she lias he stayed peacefu.Uy for a period of 6 months iu fhe matrmiontal house and, ffaereafter, she went to submits fhat the stoiy, which has been , made out in fhe applicatio^i and the evidence which has been led by fhe respondent, is far froiq beiug probable. He further submits that ;nt has admitted that at fhe tune of marriage, no dowry was de^nanded or taken. Therefore, fhe aUegation of maltreatment in the naii^e of dowiy after 6 months of the marriage nd the Courts.below ought to have T ' •• -1, s%j ... ^y^i XI-HC—78 ~3^f !cT?T, "^NTS, •fs^rcry sn^r ^ir ft-iisb | •iT«iT3ii^rg>iiw -^ '<-.. Pcaveen srr^; TR; (1}?f3»^(?) TOTOR flWI SII^T - 2- — efi^.Sfi3 After ^?lIlg.thTat^KTl]l ;3i2- ^*:^*•afeiSAthe revisional .^ay^g^ ^l.s''- .V :':. ^\"'-y'.^^ ; 1.~.'? .. ^-.. •<- .-' consideTeS"'meficiSlftiis^»tB|e ^^••.^.^.:^ ^tJ^^.fci ypan consideration'oT the'^dence available on record, it came to tfae ....^hie;':! ce)nclusiont4at.the,.^e§Bpnd^ wifhout any sufEicient reas^ Rs;5QO/- per month has y • • " • '. - -. revisional Coiut Uas alsd ^nt cannot be said to be liviag separately j?n and, therefore, a meager am.ount of (leen awarded to fhe respondent. The affiraied fhe order passed by the Magistrate. ;<••»<>.;•,9f. . •^fs ?:• •"%:•;••-^ '; i ."^.wiiilfi 'gxereisu^ powef i«j, Court win Bbt act as. a ^'y"-" . ia:-l':t*-^€ fhe evidence avai.labl&.pnii oftheCr.P.C. are suminery i|n and fh.e records, I find that ofience, offence..i»i3iske^ Secfion ,regfetered- agaSy's'MB^fetitio^.er In yiew. of .tfae.i^bove, i.t.'-w «" i,SSB^"'-"S v.,-f:<! WqfeTqT-T tTroffi ^ fsv't T?3regK ^affiiTqSTI^I order passed by the leamed Magistrate find that the leamed Magistrate has oral evidenceled by fhe parties and redord under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C,, this of appeal to re-appreciafe or re-assess 1. The proceediags under Section 125 nature. After going fhrough the orders on aUegation of commission of criminal 498-A of the IPC has also been and charge sheet has been filed. II am not incliaed to interfere with the ,. .. ^^-.^^^igfiteiaAaS-iK) su^stance. The same Uable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissedj ManindraMohanShrivastava S(Ci nsv'yaS •S..'-.,.iS.i-* J- ^-—-