n .;"•" .,:.", '<1-8 '^ "s^ ^vfi" .,S ~''i ''^'SS'f. Ao^ '•[•1^ ,. '!1:ls« :s:ites »-%fc HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Misc. Petition No.75 of 2006 PETITIONERS/: (Applicants) RESPOJMDENT: 1. Laxmi Sahu, W/o Heeraram Sahu, Caste Sahu, aged 26 years, R/o \ Dongariya 2. Saurabh Kumar, S/o Heeraram, Caste Sahu, aged abut 3 years, Minor, Through Natural Guardian Mother Petitioner No.l Laxmi Sahu Both R/o Village Dongariya (at present) P.S. Pendra, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Versys Heera Ram, S/o Ram Prasad, Caste Sahu, aged about 27 years, R/o Village Harratola, P.S. Gaurela, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) {Petition under Section 482 ofthe Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973} jlesh Ahuja, counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Rakesh Pandey, counsel for the respondent. Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORAL ORDER (3-8-2009) 1. This petition under Section 482 of e Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 26-6-2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Pendra Road in Criminal Revision No.269/2004 partly setting aside the order dated 16-4-2004 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First class, Pendra Road inM.J.C.No.86/2002, whereby the amount of maintenance of Rs.500/- awarded to petitioner No.l was set aside by the revisional Court. 2. Order impugned is challenged on the ground that learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed illegality by setting aside the maintenance awarded to petitioner No.l and caused serious prejudice to petitioner-No.l. / 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned as also the order of the trial Court. ^) ^^^•'^*^. ^ "'^ss'si, g •^^^i' .1 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.l has lodged report against the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and on the ground of cruelty she was not living ..vyith the respondent, therefore, she was entitled for maintenance. Evidence^was not appreciated by the revisional Court in its proper perspective and only on the evidence of witnesses of the non-applicant/respondent,. maintenance was refused to petitioner No.l. >. •V. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the petition and submitted that the respondent has tried his level best to keep petitioner No.l with h'im, but petitioner No.l refused to ^'l. accompany the respondent and live with him as his wife. Therefore, in absence of any reasonable cause for living separately, petitioner No.l is not entitled for maintenance. 6. Order impugned and copy of the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class reveal that petitioner No.l has lodged report against the respondent for offence.punishable under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and petitioner No.l has deposed that on the ground of cruelty & torture she has lodged the report. This is a case of maintenance to wife. Petitioner No.l is legally wedded wife of the respondent and the respondent is under obligation to maintain his wife. The trial Court has awarded maintenance to petitioner No.l after considering the factum of cruelty, but the revisional Court has not considered that aspect and has considered the evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent.' Irl absence of any consideration relating to question of cruelty, theorder of denial of maintenance to petitioner No.l is not sustainable. 7. Consequently, the petition is partly allowed. The order setting aside the order of maintenance awarded to petitioner No.l is hereby set aside and the order of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pendra Road is hereby restored. - ,—-—— r Sd/- T.P. Sharraa soina