HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRIMINAL REVISION No. 657/2006 CRIMINAL REVISION UNDER SECTION 19 (4] OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, 1984. (SB :Hon’ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Presenti- Shri LAN. Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Gautam Bhaduri, Advocate for the respondent/non-applicant. ORAL- ORDER (Passed on 20/04/2010} Heard on admission. Also heard on I.A. No. 01 application for taking documents on record. On due consideration I.A. No. 01 is allowed. Documents are taken on record. Order impugned perused. Vide order dated 10/05/2006 learned Judge, Family Court, Korba has dismissed the application for maintenance filed' on behalf of the petitioner under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘the Code’) against the respondent i.e. her divorcee husband. Application is dismissed on the ground that as per judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 9-A/2006 vide order dated 10/05/ 2006 by Judge, Family Court, Korba decree of divorce has been granted in favour of the petitioner at the instance of petitioner and her claim for permanent maintenance under Section PETITIONER Smt. Vageshwari Sharma, aged APPLICANT about 27 years, Wife of Rahul Sharma, Caste—Bramhan, R/o Near Sethinagar Stadium Raigarh, Present address:— Shiv Aushdhalaya, Main Road, Near Old Pawan Talkies Korba, Distt. Korba (C.G.). VERSUS ‘r RESPONDENT Rahul Sharma, aged about 29 years NON—APPLICANT S/o Ashwani Kumar Sharma Caste — 4x '2‘ Bramhan, R/o Near Sethinagar Stadium Raigarh. Present address: House No. F/21, North Chakradhar Nagar, P.S., Tah 3 and Distt. Raigarh (C.G.). zip” 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been denied on the ground that Rs. 5 lakhs has given to the petitioner and petitioner herself has agreed by executing the agreement that she will not claim any maintenance. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per agreement or judgment and decree impugned, Court below has not awarded any maintenance. Alleged amount of Rs. 5 lakhs taken to the petitioner was for marriage ‘expenses and not for the maintenance even otherwise, the alleged agreement is against the Public Policy therefore; such illegal agreement is not binding upon the petitioner. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the revision and submits that present petitioner is in possession of Rs. 5 lakhs therefore, she is not unable to maintain herself. 7. Order impugned and copy of judgment and decree dated 10/05/2006 passed in Civil Suit No. 9—A/2006 by Judge, Family Court, Korba between the parties perused. 8. Alleged judgment and decree clearly reveals that petitioner has taken Rs. 5 lakhs to the respondent as a marriage expenses. Petitioner has not denied the fact that she has not received Rs. 5 lakhs. The purpose for providing maintenance to the wife and children is to save them from destitution and vagrancy and make them able to file appropriate application before the competent Court for the maintenance. In the present case, as per the judgment and decree impugned present petitioner is in possession of Rs. 5 lakhs therefore, it is difficult to hold that present petitioner is unable to maintain herself, in absence of factum of such inability to maintain, the present petitioner is not entitled for maintenance. Court below has rightly rejected the claim of maintenance. Court below has not committed any illegality. Consequently, this criminal revision is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed at the stage of motion itself. Sd/- 1 T. P. Sharma Judge‘ i<k/