HIGH COURT OF CHHAmséARH AT BILA-SPUR {$r.M.P’No.485 of 2007 Pgtitigner 5aukamn 5nhu, 510. 55hri Aa'rma Ram Sa’hu, aged abouf : 28 year's, W0. Viiiage Andi RS. o": Tahsii Dondiioham DisttDurg (£16.) Versus I RaspondeMs SmtDuleshwari Sahu W/oV (:‘iaukarm Sahu, aged abouf : 24 years, ' Rupesh Kumar' 5/0. Emukamn Sahu, aged abouf 4 years (Minor) éuar'dian ‘rhrough Mofher- SmtDIeshwari Sauu, Priyanka 5ahu, Dlo. @aukamn Sahul aged abouf 2 %- years (Minor) Guardian 1hrough Mofher SmiDuieshwari 5ahu, W/o. Gauknmn Sahu, Residence ‘of Viiiage : Kashi, P.S. 8: Tahsilw: Eandiiohara, WsftDurg (€J’s‘.) @ei’i'tion under Section 482 of ‘rhe Cr.P.C.) .($$; Hnn'ble Mall Sharing. Ja) ’Pr'egem : Mr. B.P.$ingh, agunszi for the pefi'rionerv ORAL ORDER {Passad an 27'” Catcher, 2009) . The petitianer has filed ‘this peti'i'ion far quashmgn‘r of The ”order dafad 1012007 passed by fhe Additional Sessiens Judge, Baiod, in Cnimina! Revision No.1?1/200é, affirming The arder dafed 19.&.20Qé passed by the Judicial Magistmfe First Class, Baiod, in Criminal MJC No.185/2005 whereby learnad Judicial Magisfm‘ia First Class has 9/ awarded thz mainfenance of Rsv500/- per month 19 sash of the‘ respondents. 2. The order is challenged on 'Hqe ground responders? No.1, wife of the peiifiener is residing separately from fine getifianerwwi‘ihoui any jus'i a V u E and reas9nab!e case, $hzrefor-e, she is no? emi?le‘d for maintenance, bu‘r the Courts bebw have awarded The main‘renance and Thereby committed illegaliw. $2— .3“ I have heard learned counsel for The petitioner and perused fhe order impugned and order 9f *rhe trial Court 4. Learned counsel for *rhe pefifioner submiwrsvrho‘r he is not challenging ‘lhe order awarding mainfenonce of respondents No.2 and 3, bu? he is challenging the order awarding nioimenonce of respondent Noll, wife of e pe‘ri‘lioner. Learned counsel furfher submits Tha'i' respondenf No.1 hEe‘‘ wily leff the house of the petitioner and went to her parental -ioner has filed the getition under Section 9 of the Hindi Marriage‘dct for restitution of conjugal rights, but on the ground of non-service, upon, respondent No.1, the petitioner has” withdrawn the petition for restitution of conjugal rights. Learned counsel also submits that to keep respondent No.1 and children with him he has executed an agreement before the community meeting that he will keep his wife and children and will maintain them 5. From perusal of the order impugned and order of the trial Court, it appears that the petitioner used to commit torture and cruelty upon respondent No.1 and compelled her to leave his house. Community t ‘ meeting was convened and before the community meeting, the petitioner has executed an agreement that he will keep good‘and maintain the respondents. The findings recorded by the Courts helow‘ are sufficient for drawing inference that'respondent No1 is residing separately from the petitioner under compulsion and not willfullyl ‘ , v o. I do not find any scope for interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petition is liable to be dismissed and it is § e. .. st : h t l r h hereby dismissed. sd/_ T.P. SHARMA “'\~\. “Judge 3/- ‘