HIGH COURT OF CHHATTE$GARH EELASPUR Cr.M.P. NO. 121 of 2896 Single Bench : Hmfbfe Shri Justice T.P. Sharma, Judge PETITIONER Goverdhan Panigrahi, 41 years, S/o Shri D.S. Panigrahi, R/o Village Chingpai, P.S Dafbha, District Bastar (C.G.) Versus a ‘1‘ RESPONDENTS 1. Smt. Meena Panigrahi, 37 years, W/o Goverdhan Panigrahi, 2. Ku. Ankit, 14 yeais, D/o Goverdhan Panigrahi, 3. Ku. Kritika, 7 years, D/o Goverdhan Panigrahi, 4. Meenal Panigrahi, 3 years, S/o Goverdhan Panigrahi, Res. No.2,3 & 4 minor through: Mother & Natural Guardian, Res. No. 1 Smt. Meena Panigrahi, AII R/o'Near Karmel Church, Shanti Nagar Ward, Jagdaipur, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) Miscellaneous Petition Under Section 482‘ of the Code of Criminai Procedure Present : $hri Prafull Bharat, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Alok Dewangan, counsel for respondent No.1. 0 R D E R Passed on of '2008 This is a petition for quashing the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bastar in Criminal Revision No.19/2006 vide order dated 18.4.2006 by which order dated 31.01.2006 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagdalpur in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.27/2005 was upheld. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagdalpur has awarded the maintenance to respondents No. 1 to 4 by the order impugned. 2. Facts necessary for the decision of this petition is that respondent No.1 is a wife of applicant and respondents No. 2 to 4 are children of the petitioner. Maintenance application under Section 125 @. of tm Code of Crihinai F’mcedure, 1973 (hereinaftef referred {o as “the Code“) was filed by‘respondentS against the petitioner. After giving an opportunity of hearing, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagdaipur had awarded the mainteriance of Rs.15001- per month to respondents No.2 and 3 each and Rs.1000/— to respondent No.4 and denied the maintenance to respondent No.1 on the ground that she is ar teacher and not unable'to maintain herself. Revision Petition No.19/2006 was tiled by present petition and Revision No.20/2006 was *‘ffiied by present respondent No.1 against the order dated 31.1.2006. Additionai Sessions Judge, Bastar (Jagdaipur) after hearing the parties in both revisions, rejected the revision petitions of present petitioner and accepted the revision petition of respondent No.1 and awarded maintenance of Rs.2000/- per month from the date of order. 3. The applicant raised the ground that the income of the applicant is only Rs.7900/— per month and order of maintenance of Rs.6000/- is. causing hardship to the petitioner. 4. lt is contended that respondent No.1 is not unable to maintain herself and she is not entitled for any maintenance. Respondent No.1 Smt. Meena Panigrahi in her statement before the trial Court stated that respondent is notmaintaining herself and her children and she required maintenance for herself and her children. She has denied in her cross examination relating to her service of teacher in any schooi. It is stated by respondent Goverdhan Panigrahi in his statement and cross examination that respondent No.1 is working as teacher and receiving Rs.6000/- per month but no document to this effect has been filed. Considering this fact, revisional Court has awarded Rs.2000/- monthly maintenance to respondent No.1. As regards the income of the applicant, respondent No.1 has deposed that applicant’s income is Rs.12000 to 13000/- per month from service. She was suggested that income of this applicant is Rs.7900/- per month. 5. Applicant has not disclosed his income in his statement but it is suggested to the appiicant/respondent No.1”in cross-examination that his monthly income is Rs.7900/- per month which shows his admission. H @ ~ 6. Learned Judiciai Magistrate, First Clasa has denied the maintenance to respondent'NoJ but Rs.2000/- per month but maintenance is awarded by revisional Court. 7. According to findings of the Courts below, respondents are having causes for residing separateiy under the provisions of Section 125 of the Code. Respondents are entitled for maintenance from the applicant. Monthly inCome from the pay of applicant is not below Rs.7900/- . Respondents No.2 to 4 are school going children. lt was gthfe duty of respondent No.1 to prove the actual income of petitioner but no reliable evidence has been adduced. Only Rs.7900/— per month ineome is admitted by the petitioner by way of suggestion. Petitioner is duty bound to’rmaintain his wife and children but he is not discharging his duty. Proceeding under Section 125 of the Code is a summary procedure to provide maintenance for their normal livelihood. It is neither for hospitality nor for enforcement of any substantial right. lt provides the minimum normal requirement for maintenance. Admitted income of petitioner is Rs.7900/- per month. Total maintenance aWarded is Rs.6000/-. Definitely, it would be hardship to the applicant to maintain himself and his other members in remaining Rs.1900/- per month. Therefore, to secure the ends of justice interference in the impugned order of the revisional Court is necessary. 8. Consequently, order passed in revision petition No.20/2006 by order dated 18.4.2006 is partly modified and instead of Rs.2000./— per month, maintenance to respondent No.1 Rs.1000/— is awarded to the respondent No.1 from the date of order of original Court i.e. 31 .1 .2006. Accordingly the petition is partly allowed. Kvr