iiijliijiii HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Revisioner Non-applicant Respondents Applicants Criminal Revision No.08/2007 Muneshwar, S/o Shri Budhu Uraown, By Caste Uraown, aged about 30 years, Resident of Village-Ara, (Jarhapara), Police Station Sitapur, District Surguja (C.G.) Versus 1. Rampati W/oShr) Muneshwar, By Caste-Uraown, aged about 25 years, 2. Pintoo S/o Shri Muneshwar, By caste Uraown, age<J about 1 % years, (Minor) thrpugh Mother Rampati, W/o Shri MUneshwar, Both are the Resident of Village- Ara, (Jarhapara), Police Station Sitapur, District Surguja(C.G.) Criminal Revision under Section19(4) Qfihe Familv Courts Act, 1984. Present: Shri Rahul Mishra, counsel for the applicant. ORALORDER 1 (Passed on 06-08-2009) Heard on admission. (2) The applicant is aggrieved by the judgment dated 10-10-2006 by the Judge, Family Court, Ambikapur, District Surguja in Misc. Criminal Case No.452/2005 whereby monthly maintenance of Rs.400/- wAs awarded to the non-applicant No.l/wife and Rs.200/- was awarded to the non-applicant No.2/minor son fromthe date of order. (3) The sole ground urged by learned eounsel for the appiicant in iHis revision is that first mamage of the non-applicant No.l/wife subsisted oiti thedate ofher making the application under Sectipn 125 oftheGr.I3^ against the applicant. However, lesirned counsel for the &pplicaht hais!|n|pt •L. 'iili [i!l^!l ^:i: li'?l -I! fil iTumane U'*"- f able to demonstrate thatthe applicant/husband had adduced any material before the family Court to show that the first marriage of the non-applicant No.lAwife subsrsted on the date of application under Section 125 ofthe Cr.P.C. (4) In this view of the matter, no such illegality as would warrant any interference in exercise ofrevisional jurisdiction is seen in the impugned judgment. (5) The criminal revision being devoid of merit is dismissed at the stage ofadmission. Sd/- DilipRaosaheb Deshmukh Judge