PstrHonsrs ^ ?" Resoondents HI6H COURTOF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR Cr.M.P.No.594 of 2008 Nwin Kumar Bhaley, S/o.Poshan Bhaley, Aged obout 36 years, Kesident of Village MaiiQmaya Chauk Patan, Poiice Station ; cnd Tahsil Patcm, District Durg (C.6.) Versys 1. Smt.Pushpa Boi, Wife of Noyir| famap Bhaley, Aged about 30 yeurs, Coste Koshta - 2. Kumari Poyal, Daughter ef Navin Kumar aley, ageci about 3 years (minor), Through mother Smt.Pushpa Ekxi W/o , Nayin Kumar Bhaley Both wre, resjdent of viltage ^iariyabondh, Poiice Station and Tohsil ^apiyabandh, Disrici' ftaipur (C.6.) (Petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.) (SB:Hon'bleMr.T.P. Sharma. -J.) ^r.N.S.Dhurandhar with Mt'.PX&hynindhat'^ounse! for "the pietitieiner. Mr.Shivendu Pandya, counsel forthe re^iondents. ( .AL ORDER a (Passsd on 29th October. 2009) 1. The petitioner has fitedth is petition for qucishment of 1+ie order dated 13.10.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, ©eiriyaband in Criminal Revision No.04/2008, affirming the order datetl 1.3.20W passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, fioriyaband, in Criroinat MJC No.120/2006 whereby learned Judicial Magistrate First CktSS hds awarded the main'tencnce of Rs.2000/-per month to respondentNo-2. 2- Quashment is prayed on the 9round that though fhe petitionK' is responsible and liable for maintenance of his ininor dough^er rsspondent No.2, but ihe amount of mainten<mc« awaptted to respondent No.2 is excessiye and the Court below has not cpnsider|ed the evidence of the petitioner which was sufficient to riiow that 1jhe iS c:- petitioner is haying no income to mnintain or to pay Ihe main-tenance to his rr'.inor daughter md thereby committed itlegality. .3. Brief facts of the case are that reqsondent No.l is wife and respondent No-2 is minor daughter of the petitioneff' Rs.2000/- per month wns awarded to req}ondent No-2 by the Jadicial Atagistrate Fir'st Class, Sariyaband under Section 125 of the Code of Criminat Procedure, 1973 which has been i;onfit?med jn crimina! pevision vidB order impugned. 4. I hcye heard learned counsel for thie piarties <md perused the records of the Courts below. 5. 1-ewried 'counSel for the petitioner yehemently ai^ues that the petitioner is haying no independent incon'e. He is mancging affairs of his father in joint properfy and in abance ofony inwme, it is diffiffilt for him to poy any amount of msiintenance to reqwndent No;2. ' 6. On the other hcnd, leamed counsel fep -Hie respondents ajpported the order in^ugne3 ^c) di^i»slh<rt'1+!sf;^N-iener is haying inconfe from his joiht fcfmily property and'he is iab'le-bodied man. l-eamed ^eounsel furHier argues that considering theypisl^isjt- cost of living, theampunt of Rs.2000/- is just a"d proper maihtehari& to the dsughter preaenl aged about Ayecu's. ^ s 7. Ft is not disputed that -fhe petitioner is liable for maintenance to.his minor daughter. He is nble-bodied m<m. He is managSng flgricultural !ands and affairs of his father in joint family propecty wdfidi is sufficient for drawing inference thirt the petitkmer is hwing'hisonin income. Considering the present cost of Iwing, the waintenanca:of fts.2000/- awarded to req)on<tent No.2 is neithereswassiyeanwfunyi warnanting any interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction. 8. Consequently, the petition has no force, same is liable to be dismjs^c! and it is hereby dismissed dt the motion stage itself. • idt.i^.i.lujtui Sd/- T.P.Sharma Judge