s^q- ^ii^io')^, 8Tf1y't<s, Rirti'yy HINdl *NI* ^ 200 3S^f ''VSV; (ipf^g^g) sn^i.'w R-ii* ^ITSITOT Alleh TOIBR'Bfel 311^71 S.B. HON. SHRI JUSTICE DH Cr.M.P.No. Applicants VEt Non-applicants 'niifci'fli tritRff if 'fyzr <F>t<^i< ^r siRpr sii^i RENDRA MISHRA. J 337 of 2007 Smt. Tameshwari Goswanii, aged about 40 yrs, W/o HiragirGoswami. Rewti Raman @ Pranjal Goswami, aged about 15 yrs, s/o Hiragir Goswami, minor through natural guardian mother Smt. Tameshwari w/o Hiragir Goswami. poth r/o Nayapara ward, phatapara, P.S/P.O./Tahsil phatapara, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ISUS fiiragir Goswami, aged about 62 rrs, s/o Shubhgir, r/o Anderson ^ali, Torwa Basti, Bilaspur, P.O./P.S./Tah./ Distt. Bilaspui-, C.G. 29.8.2007 Shri B.M. Rao, counsel fi|>r the applicants. Heard. The applicants by the in| ofthe Cr.P.C. have impugned by Additional Sessions Judgej ^tant petition under Section 482 tfie order dated 17.5.2007 passed Bhatapara in criininal revisipn^ GRPRJ— FS/246—2/2007— 50.080. T5ST -'•IWI'fl^, C<)Tf1y'l<S, Rf<?'>l*<^< NIN<"11 »t|Tqi ^ 200 an^?r 'qsra? (ipf^g^w) SD^I.'^T Kt-t ^qTSIR^T slWH? TOH^R ;af?<T ®n^[ No. 18/07 whereby the learned confirmed the order dated 27.1 Case No. 79/06 passed by Bhatapara. |Additional Sessions Judge, has .2006 passed in Misc. Criminal JUdicial Magistrate First Class, tbe inairitenance Grievance of the applica^its application under Section 125 against the nofi-appli'cant and basis of coinprom:ise entered in\ in the year 1998 as the non| Rs.1,00,000/- towards However, subsequently an appl|( Cr.P.C. was filed by the appljc amount on the ground that amount, so deposited, as per c(i is not sufficient for their livy enhancement should be made. 'niiii'i'fli llicff'9 fe'st <ps|^l< i;3tfgH3II^[ is that they had moved an of the Cr.P.C. for maintenance same was disposed of on the :o between the parties way back •applicant deposited a sum of of the applicants. :ation under Section 127 of the ;ants for enhancement of the the interest accruing on the >mpromise betcveen the parties, •lihood and therefore suitable The above application w with an observation that since! disposed of on the basis of be awarded additional maintl compromise and the above End| by the impugned order. ras rejected by the trial Court maintenance proceedings were tnpromise, the applicants could &nance only on the basis of ing was subsequently confirmed GRPRJ— FS/246-- 2/20C?— 50.00( ff1 ^e^ •^ii^ic'i.q, aTfl'M'ie, (s|<41'yt^< ~^Wv\t *Nlcb WT, an^?r 'fw (^yt^i 3H^I.W Vw^ 'tWT 311^1 ~sht|i* Vi wiiWHtesn^r After going through the below, this Court is of the coi illegality or infirmity in the interference in exercise ofjurii Cr.P.C. AccordiAgly, the peti dismissed at the admission sts 'nillci'il-l TTOTCJT if fe^ ^RSR ^sffgHaii^T ^rders passed by both the Courts Lsidered opinion that there is no jnpugned order which warrants Idiction under Section 482 of the [ion being devoid of substance is tgeitself. ^ ~— o^7~- DhirendraMisl! Judge GRPRJ— FS/246—2/7.00-— 5C.OQO.