N HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr. M.P. NO. 123/2008 PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE,1973. (SB :Hon’ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present Shri Ragvendra Pradhan, Advocate for the petitioner/ applicant. Shri C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate for the respondents. ORAL- ORDER (Passed on 26/09/2008) 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 5/ 10/2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jashpur, Link Kunkuri in criminal Revision No. 05/2007, affirming the order dated 30/ 11 /2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jashpur in Criminal case No. 55/05, whereby learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, awarded the maintenance of Rs. 1500/- to the non—applicant N01. 2. The order is challenged on the ground that present non-applicants N0. 2 81s 3 are residing With him also on the date of passing the order by Judicial Magistrate First Class they were residing with her. Trial Court has wrongly awarded lump sum maintenance for non—applicants No. 2 85 3 to non—applicant No. 1 and committed illegality. l Nands Pra$ad, S/o Nirakar Barik about 27 years, Caste mahkul, Dodagaon, P.S. 82; Tahsil Sitapur, District Sarguja (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. Smt. Kunti Bai, W/o Nande Prasad Aged about 23 years. 2. Ku. Bholi Yadav, D/o Nande Prasad, aged about 7 years. 3. Umesh, S/o Nande Prasad, aged about 5years. No. 2 and 8 monors, through mother KuntiBai. A11 R/o Village Kharkatta, Tahsil Pathalgaon, Disrict Jashpur (C.G.). 3. Shri Ragvendra Pradhan, Advocate for the petitioner/applicant arid Shri C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate for the respondents/non-applicants are heard. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that originally non— applicant No. 1 has applied for interim maintenance of Rs. 500/- each for herself and for 2 children namely Ku. Bholi Yadav and Umesh total of Rs. 1500/- but at the time of passing the order trial Court awarded the maintenance of Rs. l500/- and mention that present applicant should provide Rs. 1500/ — to the non—applicant NO. 1 same was affirmed in revision. Non-applicant NO. 1 had not applied before the trial Court for interim maintenance of Rs. 1500/— per month for herself. She had applied for Rs. 1500/- interim maintenance for herself and for 2 children who were residing with her at the time of filing of application but at the time of passing the order they were not residing with non—applicant No. 1. Trial Court has erroneously awarded the maintenance of Rs. 1500/- for non-applicant NO. 1 interalia interim maintenance of Rs. 1500/- v we which was not prayed for. 5. The order impugned is supported on behalf of the non-applicant N0. 1 and learned counsel for the non—applicant No. 1 submits that trial Court after taking in to consideration the condition of the non-applicant No. l has awarded the maintenance of Rs. 1500/- to the non—applicant No. 1. 6. The order impugned and copy of the order of the trial Court perused. On perusal of the order impugned it reveals that non—applicant No. 1 has filed application for interim maintenance for herself and for her 2 children i.e. non—applicants No. 2 8t 3 Rs. 500/— each total of Rs. 1500/—. At present non-applicants No. 2 8t 3 minor children are not residing with non—applicant No. 1 but they are residing With applicarit who is a father of the non—applicants No. 2 85 3. 7. It appears from the order of the trial Court that at the time of passing of the order of interim maintenance non—applicants N0. 2 85 3 were not residing With the non—applicant NO. l but they were residing with applicant. After filing of the application for interim maintenance for non~applicants, non-applicant NO. ‘I has not filed any other application for interim maintenance of Rs. l500/~ for herself. Her application for interim maintenance shows that she had filed application for interim maintenance of Rs. 500/— for each non-applicant. Learned trial Court at the time of awarding the interim maintenance has not assigned any reason that whether trial Court has awarded interim maintenance to non applicant NO. 1 for all non—applicants or ”has awarded interim maintenance more than what she has applied for herself under any special circumstances. 8. Court is empowered to award reasonable interim maintenance but if Court awards any amount other than the amount claimed by the applicant then Court is required to assign the reason for such enhancement but in this case trial Court has not assigned any reason for awarding the maintenance of Rs. 1500/— three times to her claim. The order of trial Court has been affirmed by the revisional Court without assigning any reason or justification. The order of the Court below is not sustainable. 9. Consequently, the order is liable to be modified and it is hereby modified the maintenance of Rs. 1500/- awarded to the Non-applicant No. l is modified to the extent of Rs. 500/~. The non-applicant No. l is entitled for interim maintenance of Rs. 500/— frofn the date of the trial Court. 10. LA. No. 01/2008 stands disposed of. of the order .