Agglicant HIGH WURT OF CHHATTBSGARH AT $ILASPUR Single Bench : Hon’b 'D'l' o hebDes J. Wining! Rwkiqn No‘w ¢f 2006 Bala Prasad Pandey, S/o Ganesh Prasad Pandey. Resident of Bank 0f India, Branch Korba, Distt. Katha (C.G.) w 1. Smt Beena Pandey, W/o Bala Prasad Pandey,. aged about 38 years, residence of MIG 1/50. Maharana Pratap Nagar. Korba. 2. Ku. Arti Pandey, Dlo Bah Prasad Pandey, aged about 22 yeats, residence of MIG1I50, Maharana Pratap Nagar. Korba. Praveen Kumar Pandey. Slo Bala Prasad Pandey aged about 22 years. residence of ‘MIG1/5o, Maharana Pratap Nagar. Korba. 4. Anshu Kumar Pandey‘ Slo Bala Prasad Pandey, aged about 14 years, (Minor) through Natural Guardian Mothen Smt. Beena Pandey, residence of MIG1150. Ma’harana‘ Pratap Nagar, Korba. MEMORANDUM or cRIMluAL Rmsmu unpan sacnoM 19(4) or 1H5 mam coua'r Acr. 19m Present : Applicant by'Shri Wmalesh Bajpai. Advocate. None appears for the non-applicants. QgAL Opgg (Passed on 1 June, m9) Heard on admission. 2. The applicant is aggrieved by the order dated 31.012006 passed in M‘J.C.No.89/2005 by the Family Court, Korba whereby monthly maintenance of Rs.2000I-, Rs.2000l- and Rs.1 OOOI- was awarded to the non-appiioant No,1 (wife), non-applicant No.2 (daughter) and non-applicant No.4 (son) respectively. 3. During the course of arguments, Shri Vimalesh Bajpai. laamed counsel for the applicant has not been awe to pomt out any such Infirmny or manifest error of law as wou‘d justify Interference m exercise of reviswna‘ 1unsdlct§on m the impugned order. 4. Attention has been invited to pamgraph 39 of the impugned order whereby it has been observed that out of the amount of maintenance, the non- applicant No.1 - Smt. Beena Pandey shaii bear expenses of education of non- appiicant No 3 (son) Praveen Kumar Pandey However in View of the fact that in the operative portion of the order contained m paragraph 42 it has been specmcaliy ordered that non-applicant No 3 Praveen Kumar Pandey is not entitied to receive any maintenance from the apptrcant herein srnoe he has attained maiorrty there rs no merit In the contention. 5. No ground exists for any interferenoe in the impugned order. This revision is dismissed at the stage of admission. Sdl— iDilip Raosaheb Deshmukh i 1. ’ J. JUdge ri ' 2‘ w w I f i $§FW > w r i V“ ~ m ' ,r R W