EW.W,W am m Wt mm %€tm« $a1fanm ’ Vs RESPONDENTS Tendumuda, P.S.: Marwahi, Dis‘rr'ic‘r Bilaspu CG. S Tyendra Das, s/o Vikr‘amdas, aged abouf v 3 years. . K . Pooja, D/o SaTyendra Das, aged about year‘s. ' - . C andan, S/o Satyendra Das, aged about ' . K . Jyoti, D/o Satyendra Das, aged about 8 ears. . Kshan, S/o Satyendra Das, aged about 4 y¢ars. Responden’r No.2 To 5 through i‘ls guardian fa’rher‘ Sa‘ryendra Dds, s/o Vikr‘amdas, aged about 39 year's. All fhe resident of Village Badra, Mohalla No.6, P.$. Bhclumuda, Disfr'ic’r: Shadol (MP) year‘s. Present Mr. Rakesh Sahu, AdvocaTe for rhe pefi’rioher‘. o R A L o R D E R (10* amber, 2007) Per Dhirendra Mishra J: By This peTiTion under Sec‘rion‘482 of fhe Cr.P.C. The pefifioner' has impugned ‘rhe order da‘rzd 30.6.2007 passed by ‘rhe learned Addifional Sessions Judge (Fl‘C), Pendra Road in Criminal Revision Shyam 3m} w/o Sa‘ryendra Das, aged 36 years, R{o Village'. Badra, P.$. Bhalumada, a’r present Village: PETI‘EONER' 1 1 l J‘. wwmhwm i ‘mnmmI ” 1”““ ‘~ mmmwmwn Lm‘w» No.297/2006, whereby learned Addi‘rional Sessions Judge has rejec‘red ' The criminal revision of fhe pe‘ri'ioner herein and affirmed fhe order of fhe ,Judiciai” Magistrate 15* (lass, Pendra ,Road passed in M.J.C. VN052/2005‘ whereby The applichfion of ’rhe peTiTioner for gran’r of mainfenance has been rejecTed. Learned counsel for The TiTioner submiTs Tha‘r boTh The courTs below ‘h‘avé’ignoréd The facT T a'r because of The cruei TreatmenT of ‘ V respo‘ndenT'NoJ herein, The peTi ioner was forced To reside separafely. I‘have heard learned cou sel for The peTiTioner. From peruSaI of impugn d order; if is evidenT Tha‘r bo’rh The courTs below have recorded con urrenT finding of facf ThaT respondenT No.1 is residing wiTh hisi fo children, whereas, The peTiTioner is residing separately wiThouT any 'usT and sufficienT cause and even The aTTempTs of respondenT No.1_ o bring back The peTiTioner To her maTrimoniaI house were Thwar d by The broTher of peTiTioner, who assaulTed respondenT No.1 herei in presence of ThepeTiTioner herein. Af‘ler going Through The impugned order, This CourT is saTisfied ThaT There is no illegaliTy or infi miTy in The impugned order warranTing inTerference in exercise of juris icTion under SecTion 482 of The Cr.P.C. In The resuIT, The peTiTio being\devoid of subsTance deserves To be dismissed and iT is hereby dis issed ‘aT The admission sTage iTself ~ Sal‘ W 5“ége 1e u