;r~ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI' AT BILASPUR Cr. M.P. No2&/2010 Applicant k.^' > in^.^ Q^^ •,;^::.:...-^,, ^*"'" ^" ^'L Shyamsunder, aged about 27 years, 'o Baisahu, R/o Madhisaree Lmradandi) , Janakpur, Tahsil Jaiiakpui-, Distt. Korea VERSUS Non- Applicant Applicants Smt Puspa,. aged about 23 years, W/'o . Shyamsunder, at Present R/o Chido.ula,. Post and Thana and Tahsil- Janakpur, Distt. Korea APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL uamt ewoaer ^•oBiykTnsoAiaii MLMUPUR 8INCU-BBBNCH: HOIPBLB MHM lUUUaDRA MOBUUiaHRW.IfiTAVA.J. PEWnOVESt RBSPOIIDBBT Car.M.P. No.767/a»10 aiyamsnader V»»U» Smt Puspa (Petattoa n/84aaotthe<2».P.e.l Am»eanuice; Shri Ftoag Kotecha, counsei &xr ft»petitioaer. ORAfc-ORDBR (Passed on 18.10,203K^. Heaid on adaussicm. 2. This pctitioa under Scctten 482 af thc G-.P.C. has bcen fited n^rieved by oider dated 30& Augast, 2010, byvduch tte teamcd Court teetow has~ dfaaaissed fhe tewisaon confinnmg liic awatd aS aaaiatenaace graated to respondeat-wife by thc Magistrate m. Crkninal Case No. 18/09. 3. Leamed counsel for fhc petitioaer aigues Aat m. onler to eaai mamtenance, it to for ttie a'espondeat-wife to estabUsh that shc is iiaable to inaintain hersdf. The argumeat of tearawd oouasel fi»r the pctitioner is that tfae respondent-wife herseU" has ^^ed tfaat she w worlnog as labourer. It 1s cfcar fhat sbe te abte -to mantaiu torsetF and, therefore, fhe appBcaat oanaot be fiistencd with fhe liablKty of payBaentofmaintenancetmderSectfaai 125«rfCr.P,C. .2- • Tte ofhcr siibmissioa oflearmril coi.usei for Ae petitiouer is Uiat there is cvidenee on icccad to shcw^ fhat t^K lady factsdf teft fhe house ofthe petitioner as shc does not Iflse the petttioiier. 4. I have gone through the ordcCT pBSsed-byleBmed Majpsteate as/tnsU^^ by leaaned tcwsfonal Courfc 5. Prom perusal of the two ortera, it is leweabsd fhat bofh tte <3ourte . bclow hasre tateen into consideraticai Ite testimoay ^' re^nadteirt-wife and other witnesses to come to canchisioa tiiatstae hasbeen hacasasd by her hnsbaxid (petitionei) and also thiat the petffiuner has-'kept anotherwoman. ' True it is '&atthe reapoadent-wife has stated that stae to eaffcssAas laboiucr, tih.at by teelf would not disrai-tide hcr to @»nt of mamtenance. Merofy because wtfe 'bas eagaged taasdf as iBfcoiaer fi)r siuvwal, it cannot be ssad Ifaat she is atote to mahitaia toiersdf. Theae ® no ofher specific evidence on re<»id to show that aespondcat-wife a caming a dcfiaite incoane fionu any dc&ute soiuce n£emjrioynanat or appointnnent or frost any pthcr souice ao as to eome to eoadusim&lliat she fa abte toxnamtam hersetf. 6. luvfewoffhe above discusswns.'Ido iwtfiadaiyaaKEttinfltepctttioa. The aamc is Babte to be dismascd and fa acooiriin^Ety dteaaissed. •. ManindraMohan Shrivastava Judge VtfMsest