^?c?°^ if t'i-g'sga. I '^iSSS^ 1.;<%'0'" •^y'\ c.. i^^:^ i'J.e'' R ^i-j-^ja^ •t» HIGH COURT OF CSHHATnSCtARH ATBILA«PUR Criaiaal Rfi^iBioa (PR1 Mo. 2271 of 3008 Sia^e Beach : Hoa'ble Mr. T.P. Sharaaa, J. APPUCANT Vishakfaa Bal aJias Biadu, W/o Kapoor, aged about 25 years, R/0- ViUage- Mahuda, P.S. Korba, Tahsil 65 Distnct - Korba (C.G.) Versus nON-APPUCAMT Kapoor Jiaswal, S/o- Hori Lal, aged about 35 ycare, R/o- Village- Faraswaiti, P.S. Korba, Tahsil & Uistnct - Korba (C.G.) IEMO OF CRIMINAL REVISION UNDER SECTION 19 (4»OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT Present : SfariK.S. Khare, coimselforthe Applicant. ORDER (Passcd on 30*b July, 2008) I.A.No.1, This is an application for condonation of detay in filing ofttie petition. fts per office report. there is a 8 days detay in friing of this petMon. For the reasons mentioned in the applicadon, it is allowed. Detay in flling ofthe application is condoned. Heard on admission. 1. This revision is directed against the order dated 7.2.2(X)8 passed by Family Court, Korba camp at Ka^hora in M.J.C. No. 175/2007, whereby the Judge, Family Court has awarded the maintenance of Rs. 600/- to the applicant under section 125 of the Codeof Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as, the Code'). 2. The order impugned is challenged on the ground that the maintenance awarded to the applicant is insufRcient. S.Ei5&- IE ii '^sgsas, ^!^'^^ Ca^., .^^ j^ /-s=~'<., i 17/ iJubey 3. It is argued on behalf of the applicant that the non-applicant is running a electric business from which he is eaming Rs.M.OOO/- per mortfh. It is further argued that the applicant is a legally wedded wife of the non applicant therefore, the non-applicant is under obligation to maintain her. fCr 4. From the order Impugned the monthly income of the non-applteant is assessed at Rs.1380/- taking into account the daitywages. The applicant has not led any evidence to sutetantiate the fact that income of the non-applicant is higher than that has been assessad by the trial Court. 5. After taking into consideraUon the material available on record leamed tral Court has rightly assessed the income of the non-applicant as Rs.1380/- and accordingly awarded the malntenance of Rs.BOOI- per month in favour of the applicant. The order impugned does not suffer from any iilegality or infirmity to call for interference from this Court. 6. Consequentty, the revision being without of any substance is tiable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. ~ TT.~=:~ T-p- SAaraa