HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARJH AT BILJ^PUR SB : HOH'BLB SHKE JUSTIC®PRITINKBR DIWAKBR CR.M.P. HO. S28/2009 APPLICANT ^^ Laxman Prasad Dewangan, S/o, Shri Gaiiesh Prasad Dewaagan., aged about 32 5^ears, ViUage & Post Paadatarai, Block Paadada, District Kabirdhaoi (CG) RESPOBIDBNTS Versus 1. Smt. Vidya Dewaagan, W/o. Laxizian Prasad Dewaugan, aged about 25 years 2. Mohit, S/o. Laxmaa Prasad Dewaiigaa, aged about 2 years, minor, through mother Smt Vidya Dewaiigaa, W/o, Laxmaa Prasad Dewangaii Botti are resident ofCMkhll, Ward No.3, Thakur Pyare Lal Chowk, Rajnaadgaou, P.S. TahsU & District Rajnaadgaon PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OP CRJMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 Appearaaee: Ms. Sunita Jaia, counsel for the appUcao.t QRALORDER (25.06.2009) Heard on admission. Challenge in fhe present petition is to the order dated 13.5.2009 passed by fhe Family Court, Rajnaadgaon in M.Cr.C. No. 91/2008 whereby Rs. 1200/- per montli has been awaided to tlie respondent No.2 as interhii niauitenance. Contention of leamed counsel for tlie appUcaat is fhat the appUcaafs raonfbLly iiicoine is not as such where he caa alford to pay Rs. 1200/- to respondent No.2, It is further contended fhat fhe applicant is workrag as Shiksha Kamu aud his raonflily iacoiae is about Rs. 7,544/- aad the applicaat has a faiiiily responsibiMly of niamtamuig his graad fafher, father, niother aad unniarried sister. I have heard counsel for the aplciant aad perused the record. Considering fhe totality of the ca.se aad ia particular that the Court below has awarded iaterisii niamteuajice only to respondent No.2 and that too, only Rs. 1200/- per inontSi, I am not iaclmed to iaterfere wifh fhe weU rea.soned order of the Court below. The petition has no substaace aiid is accordiagly, disniissed at the xnotiou stage itsetf. Sd/- PritinkerDiwaker Judge