$§mg§e R®mh VERSES ;‘¥§§%ém& ha‘z / arw gs. i) I); ggma Kn. mamgmrmawmaw M§ yaars;W wamm¥Wm wgy'iiiivya 33am, Rg $3 Timmiai, Mam Qisttw Jasimm £C£g§ E’m : Sm. §f¥3w gwa ‘Wj-‘a Jaseiah E¥t§a am ahaatiirmifm W'Rjn Kfim i @ Shri Neeikanih fv‘uaivi‘ya, c ounsei for fhe a’p'piicaiit. Heard on admissian. This petition undef Sectitm €382 0f the Code of Crimii‘uai Pi‘ocedure has been pi‘eferreci against ihe ordar dated 201‘071‘2010 passed by the Additionai $essi0ns Jucige, Ja$hpur'in Cri ninai Revisio‘rn No.’§8i05 by which the oi'der of aware? of mainté'nance ciated BIBI‘G?) passed by the Chief Judicia% Magistrate. Ja$hpur in Criminai Caso No.55i61 hao beeo oonmmoo‘. i'assaiiing the correct s of the order, learned ooumei for the appiioaht afgues ihat the ord r for award of maintenance and the orcief pasaed by the Seseions Judge are patentiy iiiegai and bewefse in as much ae the Couris beiow have rec reed fhe finding with regard f0 the appiican't being father of so caiieo‘ iiiegiiir 1aie chiici—Ku. i‘xcivina witheuf there being any regau aemissihie evidence a non-appiicani No.2. ne submits that for ihe purpose o e‘-t-‘hiiehing the parentage of the appiicant, non-appiicant No.2 was under iigation to iead thorough evidence wnien E h}has net been done in the present t From the perusai of the ‘ie passed by the Magistrate as aiso by the Revisionai Court, it is reveaie that the appiicant in his cross-examination admitted his reiations with no appiicant No.2 and that entries rnade in the death and birth register produc d before the Court! the name of the a‘ppticant is recorded as the father of t non-appiioant No.1. The non-appiioant No.2 has aiso deposed that the chi was born out of the reiationship between the t with her. The findi g is therefore hased on iegaiiy admissibie oounsei for the appiioant couid nOt uring to the asser mm o: 4‘- g a.l. evidence on record and iearne n “ n b c" se r h i n Wm Cram ®M¥R.JIDW 200 3mm mW mymm swamw (Wu) WW mam m?W §wW a? aim aném Shri i‘v‘uaruiiiiira I‘v‘iohm $hr§vastava J. . Crmfwagjw mm @ In zoo mm (Wu) mmm pap WW§WW $3i‘mm k i‘né noiice oi. ‘L- unS Lam ‘ anv patent iiiegaiify in feccrding finding with régarii to t the parei‘xia-ge of the appnc-am. £ The‘refofe, in the opinion of ini$ Court. thé ordér of awar‘d of niainienance ir favour of non-appiicant No.1 tines nai ssuffei‘ from any menaniy m p nor can it be s aici i0 be a'nuee of the pfooese of iaw nor anv miscarriage of juetice. Consequenti‘y‘, in theee e i‘cunietances, i do not find any merit in the under Seciio 482 of ine‘ oresent petiiion under 482 of ine‘ Criminai Procedure Cooe. Accordingiy, ihe petiiion is oismi. Sed. i Sdl- emu- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge