'J^ 1A:.-/ ""-." ' . Sk ^<* "•• . . • en'.i1-* V; IN THE HON'BLE HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH •»'?;": AT BILASPUR (C.G.) .^o^ Cr.M.P. No. /2008 PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDURE CODE PETITIONER ffi^ l •fWf .<'' 1¥- "\." ,y J~' .••' •'./y .' \1^ / ^/y'.M *?•' ^ ^,. <%y Smt. Sushila Devi Soni @ Chintamani W/o Ayodhya Prasad Soni,Aged about 56 years, Present R/o Purana Bazar Para, Surajpur P.S. & Tah. Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS NON-APPLICANT ^ Ayodya Prasad Soni, S/o Late Munnilal Soni, Aged about 59 years occupation- Service, R/oSonhat P.S. Tahsil and District. Korea (C.G.) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinke r Diwaker) Cr.M.P. No.303 of 2008 APPLICANT RESPONDENT VERSUS Smt. Su'ihila Devi Soni alias Chintam ani Ayodhy a Prasad Soni. Shri Sushil Dubey counsel for the applicant. Ms. Sunita Jain counsel for re spondent. PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF TIHE CODE OF CRIIWINAL PROCEDURE., ORDER (09.04.2010) Instant petition is directed against the judgment dated 2.5.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Surajpur, District Sarguja in Criminal Revis,ion No. 93/2005 confirming the order dated 4.3.2005 passed hiy the trial Court by which the application filed by the applicant iunder Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was dismisseci. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 25.1.2003 the applicant had preferred an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stating therein that her marriage was solemnized with the respondent in the year 1.963 and-out of the wedlock four sons and three daughters were born. It is stated that for last 2-3 years there-from she was being hcirassed by the respondent. It is stated that even her sons supporte;d the respondent and in these circumstances she is living with her brother. According to her, she has no sourceof income and that she being aged about 56 years is not having good health. It is stated that the respondent is a government servant and his monthly in'come is Rs. 9,000 per month, and therefore she is entitled to receive Rs. 3,000 per month as maintenance from him. In her Court statement the applicant has stated that she is living with her brother and needs Rs. 3000 per month as maintenance. In cross examination she has stated that for about 40 years she was living happily with the respondent. She has further stated that out of the wedlock four sons and three daughters ";,«!^ •-- °^f were born and it is the respondent who bears the expenses of this big family. According to the applicant, her sons Suresh and Rajesh are already married and they are also living in the same house. She has stated that there used to be some dispute between her and the daughters in law. She has stated that respondent has two properties, one is a plot in which some construction has been done which is recorded in her own name and this apart four acresof land situated in Baikunthpur is also recorded in her name and as the said land had submerged, case for compensation is pending. 3. On the contrary the respondent has stated in his evidence that he gets Rs. 3000 per month as pension and he is taking care of his big family. He has also stated that he never ousted his wife and she is living with her brother as there used to be some dispute between the applicant and the daughters-in-law. According to this witness the applicant is obdurate by nature. Similar statement has been made by witness Shankarlal Gupta. 4. Considering the evidence adduced by the parties learned Magistrate had passed the order holding that without any sufficient cause the applicant is living separately and she has failed to prove her case for maintenance from the respondent/husband. In revision, the revisional Court has also confirmed the order passed by the learned Magistrate by order impugned. 5. On due consideration of the material available on record this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the well reasoned order passed by the Court below. Accordingly, the petition being without substance is hereby dismissed. 6. While parting with the case, this Court hopes that the petitioner and the respondent herein who are fast approaching the evening of their life, should wriggle out of the internal feud and set an ideal example before their siblings. ______— •''-•'"^'.ASd/- pntinkerDiwaker Judge >»', 1