^.K "v HIGH COURt OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRIMINAL REVISION N0. 342/2004 APPLICANT VERSUS NON-APPLICANT Narendra Kumar, S/o Paras Ram Satnami, aged 34 years, R/o Vill. Rahuta, Tah. Pandaria, P/S Kunda, Dist. Kawardha, at present at Kabirdham (C.G.). Jas Kumari, W/o Narendra Kumar, aged 30 years, Satnami, R/o Vill. Rehuta, at present Bhimpuri, P/S Kunda, Tah. Pandaria, Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.) at present by Kabirdham (C.G.). CRIMINALREVISIQN UNDER SECTION 397, 401 OF Cr.P.C. (SB :Hon'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Shri Vimlesh Bajpai, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Anand Kesharwani, Advocate for the non-applicant. ORAL- ORDER (Passedon 22/03/2011) 1. By this criminal revision under Section 397, 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short (the Code') applicant has challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated 27/3/04 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) Kawardha in criminal revision No. 92/03 reversing the order dated 4/5/01 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mungeli in Misc. Criminal Case No. 24/95 whereby while awarding the maintenance to children of non-applicant and applicant learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mungeli has rejected the claim of maintenance of non-applicant on the ground that she had married with other person. While reversing the aforesaid order revisional Court has awarded maintenance of Rs. 350/- per month to the non-applicant from the date of order of the trial Court. ^^^ '-'^2-— ""l. /• 2. Shri Vimlesh Bajpai, Advocate for the applicant and Shri Anand Kesharwani, Advocate for the non-applicant are heard. 3. Order impugned and copy of order of trial Court perused. 4. As per order of both the Courts below, present applicant has claimed that non-applicant has married with one Sheesh Kumar during subsistence of her marriage with present applicant. Sheesh Kumar has been examined by the present applicant who has specifically denied his marriage with non-applicant. Other witnesses have also not deposed relating to the marriage of non-applicant with Sheesh Kumar. In absence of such evidence, revisional Court has not committed any illegality in awarding the maintenance to non-applicant; I do not find any illegality in the order impugned requiring any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, criminal revision is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge -< \^