m ^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CSmATTlSQ/SOl AT WLASPUR APPUCANTS NON-APPLIGANTS Qc. M.P. Ho. 173/2007 1. Laxminbai, W/o -NandkumaF Aged about 27 years, 2. Soniabai, D/o Nandkuinar Aged about .09 years 3. Goviad, S/o Naadkumar Aged about 07 years. 4. Mukesh, S/o Nandkumar Aged about 06 years. No. 2 to 4 are mmors and are fhrough Mother Laxnunbai W/o Naadkuinar, Caste Kunni, R/o ViB^e Navapara, * Peudrikala, At present Nav^aon : (Musau), Thana Kuada, Thasil 'ii Pandanya, Distt. KaroanUia'tC.O.). VBRSUS^ NON-APPLICAWT APPLICANT Nandkiunar @ Rupchaad S/o Maabodh ^edAbout 27 years, Caste Kurmi, R/o ViB^e Navapaia, Thana Kuada, Thasil Paqndariya, Distt. Kawardha (C.G.). 4.1 APPUCATION U/8 482 OF THB CODB OF CMMmAL PROCEDURE, 1973. (SB :Hon'bIe M».T.P.Slianaa, J.) Present: Shri Vinay Pandey, Advocate for the appUeaats/petitioners. Shri Rakesh Pandey, Advocate for the respondent. ORAL-ORDBR (Passedon 15/12/2009) This pctition iinder Section 482 ofthe Code ofCriBriaat Proecdure, 1973 (in short 'the Code') &r the inodification offhie ordcr dated 12/2/07 p^sed by Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli in criminal revisioa No. 71/06 affirming the order dated 30/1/06 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Fwst Class, Mungellin Cr. M. J.C. No, 64/01 whereby leamcd Judfcial Magisttate First Class, MiuigeU has awarded fhe maintenan.ee to the pctitfoners No. 2 to 4 but has deaied fhe maintenance to thc petttioner N0. 1 on the ground that she is residiag separatety frow. the respondent wifhout any reasonable cause. ^WxUffiiKi^'i -L' v» ">-il i r 2. Order is cbaUenged on the ground fhat Ctourt beleiw has not coasidcred the evidence siifficicut for drawuig au inference that petitioner N0. 1 was residing separately fmva. fhe respondent under reasonablc cause. 3. Facts necessary for fhe disposal ofthis petition is petltioner No. 1 1s a wife of fhe respondent and petitioners N0. 2 to 4 are the childgen of petiUoacr N0. 1 aad respondent. Present respondeut coumutted cruelty upon. tfae petitioner No. 1 thea he lodged fhe report and also ffled the pe^ition for custody ofthe ehildren aad finally she obtained fhe custody ofthe chltdren. Petitioners are not able to inaiatain fhemselves, respoadent is haviag sufficient meaas but not maintntning thc petitioners on aforesaid ground, petition uuder Sectiou 125 of the Code was filcd. Rcspoadent has tiemanied with one Brajbai. Respondent has denied the aUegatioa and alfcged fhat he has never committed torture aad cruelty upon ttie pctitioner. Hc is teady and wffliag to keep flie petitionjers wifh. him. Hc has not cemamcd witti fhc Brajbai and after lodgiag the report by the respondent relatiag to the naissiag ofthe petitioner No. 1 she has lodged fhe false report. 4. After affordiag aa opportunity of the hearing to the parties lcamed Judicial Magistrate First Class, Miingeli has deiued fhe mainteaaHce to the petitioner N0. 1 awarded the laaintcnaacc to petitioners No. 2 to 4 same was affimied iu the revision." 5. Learaed counsel for fhe partics are hjeard. 6, Order uupugned aad record of Court below pcrused. 7. Lcamed couuscl for fhe petittoners vehcmenfly argued fhat respondcat has tommitted cruelty 'and torture aad cven rcspondent bas saatehed fhe ] chlldren of the petitumers which she is occupied wifh fhe assistance of the Court, fhese facts are sufficient for constituting the gtound fhat present ^petitionsrs is icsiding separatety uader reasonable cause. d»s°"?lul*!> f ^v^, ~% 1tla"-!ai< 1 'f'uiaiia j ^^ IMI 8. ^•— On tfae other hand, learaed counsel for fhe rcspondeat veheiuentty opposcd ttie petition and subnrits fhat petitfoaer is residing separately wlthout auy reasonable cause and respondent is stiU ready to keep wifh tum.. On perusal of fhe cvidence adduced on behalf of fhe partfes it revcal fhat present petittoners has lodgcd tfae report of commission of cruelty and torture against the rcspondent and respondent has also lodged the missing rcport offhe petitioner N0. 1. Petitioner is also filed the petition fi>r custody offhc cluldren aad she is succeeded the custody wlth fhe assistauce offhe Court. Prcsent respondent has n.cver tried or filed any pctitioa under \' Sectkin 9 of the Hiadu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal right evea aftcr order of fhe custody by fhe Court in favour of the pctitioner N0. 1, respondent has not tried to reconcile fhe dispute pending since 2001 it shows fhat petitioner N0. 1 Uving separately fix>ia the rcspondent uader reasonable cause and is entitled for inaiutenance. Cousequeaffy', tb secure fhe ends of justice petitton is allowed. Order uupi^ned and order of thc Court belcw is partly modifiied, considcnng thc cost of Kviaig aad price iadex, necessity for laaintenance it is ordered that respondent shaU pay Rs. 1,000/- per monfh to the petitioncr No, 1 along with amoiud: of maintenaace already ordered to petiticaiers-No. 2 to 4 fi»mtoday. Sd/- T.P. Sharina Judge :4J3