a^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR [C.G.1 Criminal Revision N0.c) cl S / 2010 I REVISIONIST U»h-<::*-PPll£An|'- Nandu Yadav S/o Ramadhar Yadav, Aged-about 35 years, R/o village-Devada, Post-Hasada, Thana-Beria, Tahsfl & Distt- Durg [C.G.] Versus RESPONDENTS AppUCo^Cs 1. Smt. Neeru Yadav W/o Nandu Yadav Aged-about 32 years, \° ..••,;\pt^cn 2.Ku. Maheshwari, aged-about 18 years, t^-"'^^~ . D/o Nandu Yadav, %^-'"'' •""*' <l!>'C ''%^>' <,AV<> Both are the R^° Hal mukam- near <v"^/i ..-•• ^y^ r p*^ Bamleshwari temple, infront of Ishwar Pan *•'• •' thela, Thana- D.D.nagar, Daganiya, Distt.- Raipur [C.G.] CRIMINAL REVISION UNDER SECTION 19^ f4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT S°rt». •"' ^•"sf-. y ^""!t a», ^ ^ '^ " ^^' t •-^^^.^. ?-- /•^s? an^I W R(ni* ?im SK^T anhT ^ TSI •<ll<<ld^, Btil'H'ls, f^rRTy .!Cx:..&^.-..!Aa.:..^..?.^'J.2 @ 3ii^r'ti°w (tcif^°<<i,Er) ^<ItW(?fclsiI^f SB_: Hon'bte Shri Manindra Mo 09-09-2010 Ms. i^orisha Chhatri, coun^« Heard. By this ,Rs1ation, under $c appiicant seeKs-to chalienge tfie' Famiiy Court wtiereby Cr. P.C. has been aitowed and Assailing c-orrectness of t| argued that the respondenis ar^ rnuch as respondents tiiemseiv^s appiicant though prepared to k^e justification putforth byi.>the coun^ei for th®appiicant. K^ep The res(:ion!3enfc;N®.1-m deserted by her husband/appiica^it has notbeen controverted. Th< appiicaht nsgiected to maintain) ^ testimony has now'here stated daughter. in view of the aforesaid e'l' appreciated by awarding mair)i interference in the award of maint Accordingiy, the reviston 14 ^)T^T4tT ^WV^ Tf fss^ ^i)^T< ^aiRn 3)i^i lan Shrivastava. >i. $ection 19 (4) of the Family Courts Act, coriJBCtness of order dated 27/4/2010 passed by respohdents on aopjication under Secb'on 125 of mbintenance has been awarded. |ie order, ieamed counsei for e applicant not entitied to grant of maintenance in as deserted the matrimoniai house and the the wife and ttie daughier, there is no its for their refusal to iive aiong with the resp(jnden Iter testimony has stated that she has been in her cross examfnation, ttiis statement other evidence on record shows that tti® his wife and daughter. nppiicant in his nat he is wiiltng to iive with his wife and rjdence on record, wriiich has been correctiy tenance, i do not find any ground for .enance. -; dismissed. _^---- ' 'c^'^sg^^ ,^0^a&" ^^a"^ .t^a •M