$!ngto Bench HIGH COURT QF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Cr.M.P, N0.^.:.../2011 APPLICANT .R. NO.-— 'WSsS- iW^ Oated Kumar Sai, S/o Kal Sai, Aged about 38 years, Occupation- Service, R/o Village- Kunj Nagar, P.S. Jainagar, Tahsil- Surajpur, District- Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. VERSUS NON-APPLICANTS 1 Chumkel Bai W/o Bhagwandas, Aged about 35 years, Occupation- Cultivator, R/o Ginvar Ganj, Present R/o Village- Kunj Nagar, P.S. Jainagar, Tahsil- Surajpur, District- Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. 2 Manglu Ram, S/o Kumar Sai, Aged about 13 years, through guardian mother- Chumkel Bai (non-applicant No. 1 a / ...^' PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF CmMINAL CODE OF PROCEDURE \\ y,^~"<i XI-HC—78 7^ r<<l'41d<<, 8>illy<l<B, fawiyy wHva a»<ira» WI, 200 sn^fTpR? (Tpf3^lt) aii^^Tlyiw 'fW Sn^TsRTEN' TOIIW ^lfCT 311^1 SB : Hon'bie Shri n/ianindra Mohan isnrivastava. J. 274)B-2011 Shri Atanu Gnosh, counsel Heard on admission. This petition arises out o1 revisional Court in Criminai Re| 28/04/2010 passed by the Magi appiicant No.2 has been affirmed. Learned counsei for the below have awarded maintenancl and material discrepancies with alleged marriaae between the Learnefi counsel for the applicantl stated dinerent date of solemnizi what has been stated bv her in h4 applicant No.1 has aiso stated diff He further submits that tne date been soiemnized between the aj date of birth as stated by non-app| hon-appsicant No.2 was born that inspite of such serioys discredi and the date on which nQn-appii4 awarded maintenance to non-apill r't)r the petitioner. '+iiii-iil-i w^ ^ fe^t Tiw?n ^sfRrq 3ii^i order dated 6/4/2011 passed by the 'l/lsion No.59/10 by which order dated ittrate for grant or maintenance 10 non- apt)licant submitted that the learned Courts ;^ to non-appiicant No.2 ignoring serlous Ireaard to the date of soiemnization of lappiicant and the non-applicant N0.1. submits thaf the non-applicant No.1 ha.s ^tion of marriage in her appilcation than ^r testimony and all the witnesses of non- ferent dates of soiemnizatson or marnage. (3n whlch the marriacse is aileaed to have bplicant and non-applicant No.1 and the iicant No.2 in his testimony also show that before the said marriaae. He submits with reQard to the date or marriaae No.2 was born, the Court beiow has licant No.2 bv recordina findina that non- ev^n discrediancies itant '^ '^Sss ^'''' XI-HC—78 WHClTfl»*<l<h 'S^ "41<<]<'l^, a'dl'H'Ko, [sK'll-M^ ...CY-^A-....^.^.36.3A/ •W!l 200 3n^?r •f^; (lj,<=if:l«f<itT) S^X ^KI K;-1 wn sn^; wt[R? O&epii ?wrar ^ifta sn^f ^- calnt appiicant'No.zwasborn out of non-applicant No.T. -.-„ j.have gpne thrQugh tne e\ there are'some discrepancies w| marriage, as stated in the appiical and other witnesses of non-app| nQn-applicant No.2 was born, witnesses. However, non-applical have been examined, aii have No.1 were. .residin.Q tofleiher forj appiieant No.2 was born. The other documents, mainly the entr) aiso,the Rashan Card. The enauiry required to b| CrPC is essentiaily summary in n( Court beiow relyina evidence awarded to non-applicant No.2. the orders passed bv the Courts i -teKe Fecoyrse;to~:oivil remedy av^ 'declaration 'before the Civii CourtJ Record be sent back. t|ie refationship between the applicant and ^raferih •in"?ff 4 ft<^ Tfa%n ^•MfffqsTT^I 1/idence ied by the parties. True itis that 'lth regard to the date or solemnization of |ion, in the statement of non-appiicant No.1 jicant N'o.1. Moreover, the date on which has also been differently stated bv the No.1 as weil as al! other witnesses, who itseposed that appllcant and non-a.opllcant a very !ong ttme and at that tlme, non- i|jrt has aiso taken into consideration some jes in the school of non-applicant No.2 and CoUrt made on appiication under Section 125 n^ture. On a summary enquiry made by the a'vlailable on record, malntenance has been [herefore, I am not inclinect to interrere wrth |beiow. -i ne appiicant is aiways at liberty to ilabie to him under the law ror appropriate —.^5""'"""" -J. [-