IN THE HIGH CQURT OF JUbICATURE AT BILASPUR CRIMINAL REVISIOfsLNo. b5b /2011 APPLICANT (NON- APPLICANT) \^--'x'^^ -;:^'%^:r:rt: ^-is^^ ,>'' \~> Pawan Kumar Patre, S/o Pudu Ram Patre, aged 40 years, R/o Village- ^&dor-a, Police Station <& Tahsil- Masturi, District- Bilaspur (C.6.) Vs NON- APPLICANT (APPLICANT) Smt. Jaleshwari Patre, W/o Pawan Kumar Patre, aged 24 years, R/o Devrikhurd, Near Shiv Mandir, Quarter No.112, Police Station- Torwa, Tahsil- and District- Bilaspur (C.(5.) CRIMINAL REVISION UNDER SECTION 39r"READ WITH SECTION ,^' OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL '^ 1s- PROCEbURE. 1973 ^L^ ^ (^-) ^^ih CA-<^'^' T / f"^ sv^y w R-fi* WT SiI^T »i*1 *ITW(T VWff ~s^ "iii<<i<n'4, sOTTiy'ie, f^cii^y —......Ii.....^r^A.S.Ial!.i ^.......^.......^.......^..........^^QQ 3II^?T 'qSRT (•^qfg^tl) TOIIW ^lfel SII^I Hon'bie Mr. Justlce 18.11.2011 Mr. Malav Shrivastava, Cct Heard. Learned counsei for thel dated 01.10.2011 passed ir| No.85/2011, by the Fami!y Col respondent is palpably, patently) as the Court below has awt evldence available on record, wi1i hsd left the house of the appll evldence to come to the conclu^ion for the respondent to live separajl to the evidence of the respondeht execution of Ex.D/1, which inclined to reside with her husbahd exceeded its jurisdiction to awarcf The order impugned shcjws has taken into consideration examined as AW-1, in which, s^ was subiected to crueitv and that a report has been !odged| beiow has taken into consideraSK been supported by the testimoiji w$s CM<<[<tl<tll *11*1CTl' "^ ^S^ <f^+$f< ^sifiinsn^i nAra_MohanShrivastava lunsel for the aDDiicant, applicant submlts that the order Misceiianeous Criminal Case jrt, awarding maintenance to the iilegal and erroneous in as much arded maintenance ignoring the ich shows thatthe respondentAwife licanVhusband. There is aiso no that there was sufficientcause telyfrom her husband. He referred to submit that she has admitted >ws that the respondent was not and even then, the Court 'oeiow maintenance. that the iearned Famiiy Court the evidence of the respondent ;e has specifically alleged that she bitteriy beaten. It is also stated in the Police Station. The Court m that the aliegation of crueltv has ly of Kriparam (AW-2). Moreover, ^u PTT^T, I— FS/140—2/2011—1,50,000. T e^". y"^,-1 311^1 VI 1<'< ~^sn sn^i a**iiq> '^ WHdl <3KW«^ 's^ "4i<<iw<i, yfl1y'i<», fs«yii-Hy,< €e^• 6..^_lil "^200 SII^T '^W (.^tySfl) irenwatoi sn^'ii the Court below has not ignore;| been meticu'.ousiy examined anc| contents of the document and tlh compeiled to seek divorce beca| fulfilling his marital obligations. !n the opinion of this C4 Magistrate are supported by thsj tsstimony ofthe respondent has| shows that there are specific Though an attempt has been rf regarding cruelty ought not to ha't but I am satisfied for the reason oral and documentary evidenc^ fact, whlch cannot be said to be warrant interference by this Coit required is not as high as is requ) For the foregoing reason^ iiable to be dismissed and is h< t'ne document Ex.D/1, which has it has taken into consideration the ^,at the respondsnt (wife) has been |jse the appilcant (husband) is not her^by +l<l[<-l<il"f W\1-S V 1®<Zt<[a|t(l< ^rsffiiHSii^i jurt, the flndings recorded by the materiai evidence on record. The |also been placed on record, which ^llegations against the app'iicant. rtiade to submit that the evidence ^e been beiieved in view of Ex.D/1, |Shat the Court has appreciated the and has recorded the finding of (;er\'erse or patently illegat so as to lirt because the standard of proof |red IR civi! proceedings. revision fails. The same is dismissed. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge •VTs€mS^fiypv5sv, 1— FS/I40—2/2011—1,50,000.