HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr.M.IMto. 26/2011 PETITIONER 2. Khirobai, W/o Chhabilal Netaia, aged about 28 years, Ku. Seeiua, aged about 5 years, D/o ChhabUal Netaia, Through natural guardian inofher Khirobai Netami, aged about 21 years, Both R/o vfflage DularpaU, ' District Mahasamiuid (C.G.). Chhabilal Netam, S/o Padumlal, aged about 26 years, Caste -Gond, R/o ViUage Dularpali, District Mahasaniund (C.G.). AND Cr.M.P. No. 27/2011 Ku. Seeiua, aged about 5 years, D/o ChliabUal Netam, fhrough natural guardian niother Khirobai, W/o ChhabHal Netam, aged about 28 years, R/o viUage Dularpali, District Mabasamund (C.G.). VERSUS Chbabilal Netam, S/o Padumlal, aged about ^ 26 years, Caste -Gond, R/o ViUage Dularpali, '' District Mahasainuud (G.G.j. PETITION UNDBR SECTION 482 OF THB CODB CRMINAL (SB :Hon'bIe Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.$ Present:- Shri Raghvendra Pradhaa, Advocate for the petitioners (in Cr. M.P. Nos. 26/2011 & 27/2011) . Respondent not noticed. ORAL- ORDER (Passedon 17/02/2011) 1. By bofh the petitions i.e. Cr. M.P. Nos. 26/2011 & 27/2011 ffled imder Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code') against the oider dated 12/11/2010 passed by First Additional Sessions <^- Judge, Mahasamiind ia revision case Nos. 24/2010 & 22/2010 are beiag disposed ofby this coiutuon order. Vide aforesaid orders impugned First Additional Sessions Judge, Maliasamund while afErmmg the order relatiag to denial of luaintenance to petitioner Khirobai on fhe ground that she is not legally wedded wife of respondent aad has reduced the inaiatenance from Rs. 2000/- to Rs. 1000/- per inonfh to petitioner Ku. Seenia, aged about 5 years. As per case of fhe petitioners on fhe contingency of pregnancy petitioner Khirobai has inarried wiih respondent after executing soine agreement ftiereafter petitioiier Ku. Seeina was bom out of wedlock of petitioner KIurobai and respondent. Respondent is not haviag siifEcient means ibr not niamtaituiig the petitioners who are unable to inauitain theniselves. On fhe aforesaid ground petition for inamtenance for Rs. 1000/- per inonfh each was filed by the petitioners. Wtule replying fhe petition filed on behalfoftlie petitioners, i^spondent has denied tfae aUegation niade in fhe application and has speci&caUy aUeged fhat petitioner Khirotoai is not a wtfe of respondent aad petitioner Ku. Seema is not a daughter of respondent, Respondent was aot haviag asy relation wittt petitioner Khirobai. After providiag ajn opportunity of hearuig to the parties, leamed Judicial Magistrate First Class, SaraipaU, District Mahasamund has awarded mamtenaace of Rs. 2000/- per month to petitioner Ku. Seema but has denied fhe clauu of niaintenance of petitioner Khirobai on fhe ground fhat during subsistence of fiirst marriage of respondent wifh Vim]a Bai any claim of vaiid inarriage by petitioner Khirobai is not legally possible, same were challenged before the First Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamuad. By both fhe petitioners separately by filing revision case Nos. 24/2010 & ^.^.i£iv^^. ,/',^'< tf i,,^'"'^ S ».<)«-. a •^/ aaai'"' 22/2010 learaed First Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund has aJEEiruied the order relating to petitioner Khirobai aad has niodi&ed fhe order rclating to petitioner Ku. Seeina. 5. Shri Raghvendra Pradhaa, leamed coiuisel for the peUtioners is heard. 6. Order uupugned and record ofbofh the C&urts below perused. 7. As per evidence adduced on behalf of the parties speciaUy the evidence of petitioner's witaesses namely PW3 Raghubeer Siagb Diwan, PW4 Jaiiakraai and Vimla Bai legaUy wedded wife of respondent who is alive. lu fhese circiiinstances, bofh the Courts below have not couunitted aay illegalily iu denying the inaiatenance of petitioner Khirobai on the ground fhat petitioner Khirobai is not legaUy wedded wife of respondent. 8. As per quantuin of laaintenance awarded to petitioner Ku. Seema and its reduction is concemed, petitiouer hersetf has claimed for niauitenance of Rs. 1000/- per monfh. Trial Court has awarded mamtenauce of Rs. 2000/ - per inontti which has not been prayed by the petitioners, saiae was inodified by fhe revisional Court. While reducing the uiauitenance awarded to petitioner Ku. Seeiua to the tune of claiui of niaiatenance prayed iu origiaal application revisional Court has not conunitted auy fflegaUty. Consequenfly, both the petitions i.e. Cr.M.P. Nos. 26/2011 & 27/2011 are devoid of nierits, same are liable to be dismissed and are hereby disinissed, Sd/- T.P.Sharma Judge