ffrv INTHEMON'BLEHIGHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR o^b Cr M P N6< /2011 PETITIONER (Non Applicant) RESPONDENT (Applicant) ,YVL--X)* ••**"'' Vijay Rathore s/o Lal Sing, aged about 26 years Cast - Rathore r/o village Girwar Thana Gaurella Tahasil - Pendraroad , Dist- Bilaspur C.G. VERSUS Smt. Archna Rathore aged about 21 years w/o Vijay Rathore, Presently residing at village Lalpur near Harri Station, Thana- Gaurella Dist Bilaspur *^.'-""t-°.^^f£o. ^ ^' O's^-PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE PARTICULARS OF THE ORDEDR AGAINST WHICH THE PETITION IS MADE ''.'•::.S'yss^?f^sp-.^. -5^ •^raT^ZF, ^T^Fre, f^TTHlR •A'- ^y^,{.^^^ TWR SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J 01-09-2011 <s* '- ' '"Wffl II 'PZt W *- s4f ^7 sam e-'w Shri Yogendra Chaturvedi, coun Shri Hemant Gupta, counsel for Heard. >el for the petitioner. espondent. This petition has been filed ag^rieved by order dated 16-11-2010 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Additicjnal Sessions Judge, Pendra Road, whereby order dated 13-05-2009 pas^ed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pendra Road, allowing applicati^n under Section 125 oftheCr.P.C., has been affirmed. Learned counsel for the petitiorjer moved an application for grant of mainl him and the Court proceeded againsti served and the impugned order of Magistrate on the basis of the evid^nce submitted by learned counsel for the pj ready and willing to keep his wife and second marriage is false and baseles|s pass order for grant of maintenance vt that the ground raised in the applic^ition respondent by leading cogent evide|nce. petitioner had also moved an applicat|i which shows that the petitioner is willin^ respondent has been awarded mainten^nce ', submits that the respondent had jenance. No notice was served upon |the petitioner treating the notice as Imaintenance was passed by the led by the wife. It is further ^titioner that the petitioner is always ]the allegation regarding cruelty and js and the Magistrate proceeded to tithout due consideration of the fact has not been proved by the He further submits that the jon for restitution of conjugal rights, to keep his wife and even then, the ', which is illegal. -FS/140—2/2011—1,50,000. "'^.^•.^V.-'-fS'C-BSE—r -3-5r ^rrara^, ^-il^;i^, fs^n-^j !'A' •q^T (^m-^^) 3i!^T qiT f(p?Ri' 'wrwWK'WB' -z- ••WT(;ff^'':"'s'AWsi^re ^ On the other hand, learned couhsel for respondent submits that the petitioner has filed this petition aggrie'jfed by order dated 16-11-2010 in a revision ^preferred against the ord^r dated 13-05-2009, by which, maintenance was awarded. He submi?s that the petitioner had moved an application for setting aside the ex paffe order, which was rejected by the Magistrate on 06-11-2009, but against the said order, no remedy has been taken, therefore, this issue cannot b^ gone into in this case. He further submits that the learned Magistrate |ias passed the order for grant of maintenance, after taking into consid^ration the material evidence led by the respondent to show that the petitjoner neglected to maintain his wife subjected her to cruelty and that wife i^ unable to maintain herself and that he has contacted another marriage. Though, the petitioner had mov^d ex parte order, the same was rejectec< However, against the said order, n^ petitioner. A perusal of the order awaijding Magistrate shows that taking into evidence [ed by the respondent and recorded that the respondent was subj^c and shunted out of her matrimonial neglecting to maintain the responijlent marriage. It has also been recorded been controverted and has proceeded an application for setting aside the by the Court below on 06-11-2009. remedy has been taken by the maintenance passed by the consideration the uncontroverted h^r witnesses, finding of fact has been icted to cruelty and she was beaten house and that the petitioner is and also contacted another that the aforesaid evidence has not to rely upon the same to hold the liilti<C1<l^^t^^"l)<?K<, O^-II^IM—FS/140—2/2011—1,50,000. ^TraM;T,.^^!y;i6, T^Ti^!^ AUU sn^i'si •R,-qNr TWI3I|i%'a?qW Tumane 3'i<ts -z 'timat'^'^'TTF ^; sfRn ;--°-?i petitioner liable for payment of mainten^ince @ Rs.2,000/- per month. The aforesaid consideration and the findingd, which have been recorded by the Magisfrate, have be&n duly considerejd and affirmed by the Revisional Court. ' " ' Iri'the result, 1 do not find any ill^gality in these findings as they are basedbri uricontroverted evidence a\jailable on record. No ground for interference in the impugned order dated 16-11-2010 is made out. As far as petitioner's claim against ex parte orderjis concerned, if the petitioner feels aggrieved by order dated 06-11-2009 aside ex parte order, he is always at liljerty to take recourse to such legal remedy as may be available to him und4r the law. rejecting his application for setting In view offoregoing, the petition i ? dismissed. No orders as to cost. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge WU'QV AAfl di;"ll<!><l, llal-IK'IM—FS/140—2/2011—1,50,000.