.1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIU^PUR Cr. M. P. 2^L 12007 yy^ ^:-^^ PETITJQNER Parvati Bai, aged about 29 years, W/o Hanuman Singh Lodhi, R/o Village Nawagaon (Jhottha). police Station and Tahsil Lormi, Distt. Bilaspur(C.G.) -^n^- M ^ »^v Versus Hanuman Singh Lodhi, aged about 34years, S/o Bisauha Ram Lodhi, R/o Village Ghorha. Police Station Nandghat, Tahsil Nawagarh, Dlstt. Durg(C.G.) ^ut°^ ^^ PETmON UNDER SECTION 482 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURECODE ^fl^T'5CT'R?WF ^T'STT^t^Hte ^^ '<fi^i<n^, y>Til^4Ko, [®ldl-(-ll|,< _^ d^ *<11CTI fl»*11^ y A^O . ^^{/b^- ^ 200 / 3TI^T'^^ (1cll^a<<^^ ^cTTW^riN 3TT^T SBiMoii^ble Shri Manincira Moh ^i^fci^ll "RTR^ff "^ fe%t <r3l^l< ^3fRTH3?1^r sin Shrivastava, Jl. 08-12-2011 Shri Ravindra Agrawai, couhsei for the petitioner. Shri Vijay Kumar Sahu,cou|nsel for the respondeni. This petitjon under Sectioh 482 CrPC has been fiied by the petitioner aggrieved by order dated 25/4/0(7 by which order dated 6/2/06 passed by the Magistrate rejecting petitioner(s ^ppiication for grant of maintenance has been affirmed. The petitioner fiied an app|iication for grant of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC on the pieadings in^r alia that the petitioner was married to the respondent and she IJved with h^ her parenial house and when s| father, her husband refused to k^ Panchayat meeting was called. ^r husband for some time and she had come to ie was taken to her matrimonial house by her »ep her and demanded Rs.20,000/-. Thereafter, t was further averred by learned counsei for the petitioner that the petitioner j was subjected to crueity and she was unceremoniousiy shunted out of t|ie matrimoniai house. The respondent, in his repgy denied aii the aiiegations and came out with a case that the parties have decid^d to live separateiy by mutual consent and the petitioner of her own, Jeft the maf:rimonial house expressing that she is not wiiiing to iive with her husband. After examining contenticjns of both the parties, the learned Magistrate rejected the application holding fiat the petitioner has no sufficient reason to iive separately from her husband afid aiiegations of crueity are not made out. On revision being preferred, the revi^ional Court affirmed the finding ofthe Magistrate that a case of cruelty is not mac|e out but aiso recorded that as there was 'chhod ...—.cbhytttbe'^eenthe parties, the ^etitioner is not entitled to any maintenance. n^W3Tr^—?.S/<40—2/2011—3,50,000. 1 ?^34. 'y""^ 1. 1 •^^^^.^•\ ^,.^^,^' 311^1 ^T^TTOT ^iT^n^^qNir *<IICTI VRW«h 7£TT<{WW'ti, yTl1y4|(o, fa|diyll<' ...(?.<r.^.^?..-...&to...(/^J, ^200 3TI^T x(^^ ('^lf^5!^) ¥^iW<Mi^a 3TI^T •^' te%r, Assaiiing the correctness Magistrate and the revisionai Coi that both the Courts below have ignoring the material evidence or made in the appiication of ihe when her father had taken her to keep her in the house and started) not willing to keep her, she was that evidence to this effect is abi and variance in pieadings and e\ case of the petitioner. He further another ground to reject the revis respondent has estabiished that mutuai consent. He further subnti between the parties, a divorced wj event, the wife is not required to separately. On the other hand, iearn^c passed by the Courts beiow. The iearned Magistrate h^s by both the parties in the light of Considering the discrepandes in | is not supported by any indepei(ii that in the criminai case institutecjl was acquitted, proceeded to rej^ has affirmedjhe findings record^d Gni<ifcn41i *ii^<vff ^f fest <f^l^l< '^3ffHH3^T jind vaiidity of the order passed by the iearned |rt, iearned counsei for the petitioner contended e^mmitted gross perversity and patent iiiegaiity in record, which cieariy supported the averments p^titioner that she was subjected to crueity and the matrimoniai house, the respondent refused to Idemanding Rs.20,000/-. As the respondent was trought back to her parental house. He submits Indantly on record yet, on certain discrepancies 1/idence, the iearned Magistrate disbeiieved the Isubmifcs that the learned revisiona! Court coined ion by holding that present is a case where the there was separation between the parties by its that even if it is taken to be a case of divorce ajife is aiso entitied to maintenance and in such an ^stabiish that there was sufricient reason for iiving counsei for the respondent supports the order considered Jn minute details, the evidence ied le pleadings and reply made by both the parties. the evidence and that the version of the petitioner indepei(ident witness and also taking jnto consideration by the petitioner alieging crueity, the respondent j^ct the appiication. The iearned revisionai Court by the Magistrate and has also recorded finding ^^Rr^T?^—i{'S/l4C$—2/20.11—3 ,50,000, I: ; ^ '^;^'S7^ i' ^ ^•^^••^:.-\ ^ -^ XI-HC-—78 l3TT^T ^T l^tpF TF^T W^T^TRNF Deepi? *<Mdi SbHich ^^ ^l^Kri^l^ ^tw^, [®|<ni^^< .......&^.:...1A?.:...^.E)/./.^ "^200 ^TT^T "9^^ (^?^^) that the evjdence on record shows <=hl^f<yl41l HW^S ^ fe^t <psl^i< '^atfiPT^H^T |that there was separation between the parties, known in common pariance as 'qhhod chhutti' in respect of which, there was pleading and evidence ied bythe rejspondent. ' • Preseftt rs hot a case of ilivorce. The aiiegation of crueity has been ^^ disbeiieved by the Courts beiow phrticujarly, taking into consideration that in the criminal case, tn<^ respondent has been acquitted. As far as, the case of the petitioner that when she was taken to matrimoniai house by her father, her husband refused to keep her and djemanded Rs.20,000/-, has been disbeiieved by the Courts below taking into consi<peration that this story has not been supported by any independent witness, thou^h some other person is said to be present at that time. The story that in Panch^yat meeting befbre the Sarpanch, the husband has refused to keep the petitionei there is no independent witness r support such story. After going through the corfiplete records and the evidence ied and after taking into consideration the findins accept the submission that there that rejection of appiication of the any miscarriage of justice so as to has also been disbelieved by recording that or any member of panchayat or Sarpanch to s recorded by the Courts beiow, I am unable to was any patent iiiegaijty or gross pen/ersity committed in cpming to the conclu^ion against the petitioner. tt is diffscujt to hold ipetitioner by the Courts below has resulted in |caii for interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC. T"e petition is accordingfy dismissed. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge