HIGH COURT CF CHHATT‘SGARH BILASPUR Crimml Rewsmn PR) No 38g af2<m8 bf Qw yi/9g Sirigle Bengm. Hon’b!e Mr T P Sharma Judqe AP PM ANT ’ ShriBharat Chauhan S/o Chi‘man Bhai ' 1 ’ , ‘ r Chauham aged about 27 years, ‘ ' .I. é ' ‘ Occupation R/o 8-1 1/4 Cap —‘ Township, ‘ v Post Office Anumala Pin Code394651 y Through Dist. Surat (Guirat) and Forema ' b Operaiionl & Maintenanée Department I _ r Karkarapar Atomic Power Project P O ’ ‘Anumaia Pm 394651 Tahsr! Byara Dist Surat (Gujrat) . i Versus \ NON APPLICANTS 1. Smt. Mamta Chauhan W/o Shri Bharat Chauhan aged about25 years,through ' ‘ Shrl Jayantr bodagar ‘ 2. Shwam Chauhan S/o Shn Bharat V 5 r V _ ' Chauhan Aged abcut1 year Natural r , t t i l t I Guardian Mother Smt. Mamta Chauhan Both are Residents of Shn Jar Sodagar A C Pipe Industries 7 A Industrial Area P V , —- Bar Gaon 493221 Rarpur CG , REVESION UNDER $ECTION 39?I401 OF THE CODE OF CRWHNAL r ~ a ‘ PRQCEDURE V i x L Pr _ e u r pi esent Shri Netkanth Malviya consel fo the aptcant _ § t ORR DE ( Passed on 25 FebrUarv, 2008) Regastry has pomted out the defautt that against the rmpugned f, order [passed by the Judic1al Maqrstrate First Ctass Rarpur thei I 'rewswn petition has durectty been flied before the High Court instead of Itmg It m the Sessrons Court ’ V XUnder section 397 of the Code of Cnmmat Procedure aqamst T he tmypugned order passed by the Judlctal Magistrate First Ctass, th t e t r t reVIs n an be flied m the High Court as we” as m the Sesstons Court Thus,, th ‘ l default pointedvout by the office stands removed. > m (D-._ n v-.h.A_,4_A. _—_._ _ l LA. No.1 is an application for condonation of deiay of 202 days in filing the revision and iA No.2is an application for calling the entire records 1 6f t the case and correspondence in respect of the instant case from the {Legai Aid Authority. i l I , , J I Dining the cdurse of argument, it is submitted on‘\beha'lf of the appliea’nt: that non—applicants are having no reasonable cause for i residing ‘separately from the applicant. it is further submitted that ' decree df restitution of conjugai rights was passed by the competent Court against the non-applicants but even then she has not complied With the same s i Elni View of the material 'avaiiable on record, l am of the considered View that the order impugned does not suffer from any. illegality.§However, the applicant seeks permission to avail the remedy under section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for alteration of the maintenance on the ground that tne decree of restitution of coniugai rights was passed against the non-appiicants i With the iiberty as above the reViSion petition is dismissed Consequently, the applications (IA No 1 and lA No 2) also stand disposed of Sd/— T.P. SHARMA F\ Judge l 5 _