iQ‘mwe wwwE IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr.M.P.No. WW /2011 PETITIONER : PyarelaLS/o Shri Samaylal, aged Non applicant about 28 years, Caste Rajwar, VERSUS RESPONDENT : Ajay Kumari W/o Pyarelal D/o Applicant ' Darbari Aged about 25 years, Occupatien House Wife, Caste Rajwar, R/o Village Sarma Presently residing at Village Kharra, P.S & Tahsil Odgi, District Sarguja (C.G.) PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE // Q“ ‘ffw Oficupation .Agriculturist .R/o \9 * Village Padrl, RS. Surajpur w" ‘w ‘ Tahsil Ramanujnagar, District— 'w “b5 \\\M Sarguja(C.G.) HIGH COURT OF CHE-KNP‘FEGARH A? BILASPUE SB : HG ”BLE MR. JUSTICE PRTTIEKER DEWARER CRJVI.P.N0. 144/201. 1 ?ETITIONER Pyarela} VEI'SU S RESPONDENT Ajay Kumari Shri Shakti Raj Sinha, counsel for the petitioner‘ PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CRIMI§AL PROCEDURE CODE The present petition is directed against the impugned order dated 18,2. 1 1 passed by the learned First Additicma1 Sessions Judge, Surajpur in Cr.Rev. No. E45/2010 whereby the learned Court below has dismissed the revision as filed by the petitioner and has affirmed the order dated 17.9.2010 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surajgur. Brief facts of the case are that respondent/Wife filed application under Section 125 Cr.P.Q seeking maintenance of Rs. 3,000 pea" mom’ri from the petitioner. After reeording the evidence of tl'ie parties, learned trial Judge has granted Rs. 500 per month as maintenance to the respondent. The order of the magistrate was unsuccessfuily assaiied by the petiiioner in Cr.ReV. No. 146/2010. Contention of Shri Sinha, counsel for the petitioner is that the netitioner is not in a nosition to earn his livelihood and therefore no order can be passed against him. He further submits that the respondent/wife had ieft the house of the petitioner of her own and on this ground also she is not entitled for maintenance. l have heard counsel for the petitioner‘and perused the record. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the respondent is the wife of the petitioner. From the record it appears that both the Courts below after due appreciation of evidence have granted maintenance to the respondent. The revision has no substance and is accordingly dismissed at the motion stage itself. itinker Diwaker Judge “131‘ Sdl— ?r N JvnGMET g14.oa.2o113