•re ^, ^3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR fC.G.) v"l Cr. M.P. No. /2007 ^mo.s ^&M! APPLICANJ' VERSUS NON-APPLICANT .^ ^^ .ffh</'.-''' ^^\\^ ^ /-"' ^'y Girvar verma S/o- Ramji Verma, aged about 33 years, Occupation- Agriculturist, R/o- Viltage- Sukhatal, P.S. -Kawardha, Tahsil- Kayvardha, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) Sati Bai W/o- Girvar Verma, aged about 31 years, Ku. Uma Bharati D/o- Girvar verma, aged about 13 years, (minor) Through her natural guardian mother Sati bai W/o- Girvar verma, Non-applicant no. 1 & 2 R/o- Village- Madmada, P.S.- Bodala, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) CR.M.PJJNDER SECTION482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, ^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Cri. M.P. No. 471 of 2007 APPLICANT RESPONDENTS VERSUS Girvar Verma s/o Ramji Verma. Sati Bai and another. -e,'rs«(*» ^•^•.^mtSi Shri F.S. Khare counsel for the applicant. Shri Arvind Dubey counsel for the respondent. PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. ORDER (04.01.2010) With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. Present petition is filed against the order dated 14.3.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kabirdham in Criminal Case No. 14/2006 allowing the application for grant of maintenance filed by the non applicants. 2. From the record it appears that on 26.4.2004 an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by the respondents herein as well as one Laxmin Bai seeking maintenance from the present applicant. After recording of evidence of the parties, vide order impugned learned court below allowed the application of the respondents herein but rejected the application filed by Laxmin Bai. Thisorderof the court below was assailed by the applicant in Criminal Revision No. 16/2007 which however was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 6.7.2007. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that though the revision petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 6.7.2007, now the applicant wants to challenge the order dated 14.3.2007 and therefore the present petition is maintainable. ••i-3a h. .•sii' -z- kS • ':f:?'H"" i:f:?:ii! 4. On the other hand counsel for the respondents submits that once on merit the applicant has not pressed the revision, in a subsequent petition filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he is estopped from challenging the order dated 14.3.2007. 5. Admittedly, while withdrawing the revision, the applicant has not taken any liberty from the Court to pursue the matter again before the appropriate Court. Even in the present petition no reason whatsoever has been assigned by the applicant as to why the revision was not pressed by him on 6.7.2007. Moreover, no challenge to the order dated 6.7.2007 has been made by the applicant in this petition. In this view of the matter this Court is of the considered opinion that once the applicant has not pressed his revision nor has he challenged the order dated 6.7.2007 passed by the Revisional Court, this petition is not maintainable. That apart, from the statements of Sati Bai, Ram Avtar and Girwar it is clear that marriage of respondent No.1 was solemnized with the applicant and out of their wedlock, respondent No.2 was born. The respondents have assigned sufficient reason as to why they are living separately and have also established the case that they are not in a position to maintain themselves whereas the applicant is having sufficient means to maintain them. 6. Thus even on merits this petition fails and accordingly the same is dismissed. ~ Pritinker Diwaker Jq4ge . ^