$i€ng§a @araw IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATrIseARH AT BILAsPUR CRIMINAL REVIsION No. V3% /2o11 Champa (C.G.). /, CRIMINAL REVISION UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT 1984 READ WITH SECTION 397 & 401 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE . PETITIONER MiThIesh Kumar‘ S/o. Vinod Kumar /APPLICANT Survanshi, aged abou’r : 6 months, '3Cas’re : Suryavanshi, Presenfed fhis revision pe’ri’rion, fhr‘ough his legal I guardian mofher Laxmin Bai W/o. Vinod 5 “ C“ Kumar‘ Survanshi, D/o. Paharu Ram aged Presented by Damd.......9.:$l-’-l/- ..... ‘ abouf : 3O years, R/o. Village Suh‘annar‘, Police Sfa'iion & Tahsil : Baloda, Dis'iri'cl' : Janjgir-Champa (6.6.). ( In The impugned order, Laxmin Bai has aiven the, Serial, No. 2, is wrongly mentioned because, by way l of this impugned order, it is clear that only Mithlesh Kumar filed the application Under Section 125 of Cr. P.C. through his mother Lamin Bai). VERSUS RESPONDENT/ Vinod Kumar S/o. Dauva Ram, aged NON—APPLICANT about : 26 years, Caste : Suryavanshi, R/o. Village : Sultannar, Police Station l & Tahsil : Baloda, District : Janjgir- _,_ Wm C;«ravma‘g/zgo ' mm (Wu) mmm mm WW a; aim m ISB : Hon’ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J.} 5.8.2011 Shn' Govincl Dewangan, caunsel for the petitioner. Heard on admission. This petition has been ed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 2.7.2011 assed by the Family Court, Janjgip Champa, hy which petitioner’s application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected. Learned counsel for the etitioner submitted that the learned Court below committed gross illegality and perversity in rejecting application for gant of m tenance by the applicant. It is contended that there is ampl evidence brought on record by the applicants before the Court elow, which proves that applicant No.2—Laxmin Bai lived with th respondent for 3 months and child was born. Learned counsel further submits that ignoring the aforesaid overwhelming evide ce on record, the learned Family Court has recorded a finding t the applicants have failed to prove that applicant No.1/the petiti ner herein was born as a result of relationship between applicant No.2—Laxmin Bai and respondent. After going through the order passed by the learned Court below, l find that the pleading of both the parties have been taken XI—HC—78 @ mm (Wu) WWW Hmmm mmm ,Z_ WW WW $aima¥ém Praveen nod Kumar, $antram Suryavanshi Devkumar and various Cir mstances relating to holding 'of panchayat meetings and that applicant No.2—Laxmin Bai not only alleged commission of offence nder Section 376 of the IPC against the respondent but also aga‘ st one Jawahar Suryavanshi. The Court below’has also taken ' to consideration the evidence of the applicant, particularly witne s No.3 Nandkumar, who has not supported the case of the app cants. After considering the evidence in detail, the Court below has ecorded a finding that the applicants have failed to establish that pplicant No.1/petitoienr herein was born as a result of relationshi between applicant No.2-Laxmin Bai and respondent. leaned in favour of the same, ed Court below has meticulously examined the evidence led by oth‘the parties. The Court below has examined the evidenceled by the applicants as also by the other parties and after evaluau'n into consideration. The 1e respondent. Thevleamed Cour below has taken into consideration the evidence bf respondent- mm a1 zoo There does not appear o any illegality or perversity in the nnding recorded by the Court elow. Therefore, l am not inclined to interfere with the order of the curt below. The petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingl dismissed. Man Judge i