^ IN T^iE, H?^3H, ^pURT, OF. CH|iATT^(3ARH, A^, BXLAgE>UR^£.^J^ ^rtn^.ftWAw.m^^ui-WMWd^^w s^2l^ia^.^sez^i2.2^i-,-S^.^^.j/125.02 • psTrrjpNSR. APPL1CANT (In Trial Court) : Sunlta Devi KansarI\N/o Harishchandra Kanshari, aged 25 years, R/o Village- Kedarpur Joda Pipal Nagar, AJobikapur, Mstt.- Surguja (C^G,). VERSUS RiSg2SB^2.,« : Harishchandra Kansari S:/o Bhlasen NON-applicant .._^^_^^ . ^^ _ ' ^ , Kansari^ aged 28 years ^ R/o Vlllage- (:In Trial Court) Palkot P.S* Palkot, Distt.-Gumala (Jharkhand) • REVISION PETTTION UNDER §;ECTION 397 RS^lD WFTH SECTZON _4-°.L_0£'. CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEEXJFvE s & ^ 1 t^\ II t7' E E^ ^ fp 1^ <D •p ^ ^ os 8o CM 1 T m C»l 0 (O •6 8 1 '§ (0 ^lt ^? •^ & -H 01 ^ CRIMINAL REVISION No. 233 OF 2002. APPLICANT Sunita Devi Kansari, W/o.Harishchandra Kansari, aged 25 years, R/o.village Kedarpur Joda Pipal Nagar, Ambikapur, Distt.- Sarguja. NON-APPLICANT Versus Harishchandra Kansari, S/o.Bhimsen Kansari, aged 28 years, R/o.village Palkot, P.S. Palkot, DistrictGumala (Jharkhand). None appeared for the parties. '^ ORDER Bv Justice L C. Bhadoo. 1. Thls criminal revision is directed against fhe order dated 16th April, 2002, passed in Crmiinal Revision No. 6/2001 by tihe Leamed First Additional Sessions Judge, Ainbikapur, distnct-Sarguja, by which fhe Leamed Additional Sessions Judge aUowed the criminal revision filed by die non-appUcant (husband) settmg-aside the order passed by the Leamed Judidal Magistrate, First Class, Ambikapur, grantmg Es.500/- per month towards maintenaiice aUowance m favour of petitioner/appHcaiit (wtfe). None is present on behalf of the eifher of the parties. I have perused fhe revision petition as weU as the impugned order dt. 16.4.2002 passed by the Learned First Additional Se^ions Judge, Ambfkapnr. The leamed Additional Sessions Judge after going through the order passed -2- L--:-^ \l-. by the leamed Judidal Magistrate First Class, Arabikaptir, statements of the wibnesses recorded in the mauitenance case, after scnitiiuzmg the evidence aiid pleadings of fhe parties has observed that parties entered into an agreement (Ex.D-1) by wlrich the appMcaiit (wife) aiid noii-applicant (husband) agreed to divorce each other and broke their marital chord. A perusal of fhe impugned order reveals that when the non-appMcaiit (husband) went to take the appUcant (wtfe) froni her parental house to his house, the applicant aiid her father said to hmi that if the non-appUcant Harishchand Kansari is ready to Mve in their hoiise orily fhen Sxunita Devi wiU go with applicant, ofherwise the fafher of the appUcant was not going to send his daughter with the noii-appMcaiit. The appUcanfs niother and her mothers sister also conveiied a Panchayat m fhe village and m that Paiichayat it was said that fhe non-appUcant is not providing stiffident and good food to the appUcant. The appUcant's fafher has got the hotel business and shop of utensHs and tiiereby he earns about Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 9000/- per nionth. Therefore, the appMcant aiid her fatlier wanted fhat the non- appUcant shotdd remam in their house (his m-laws' house) but tfiat was not acceptable to the non-appUcant. In view of fhe above learned Additional Sessions Judge fotmd that the appUcant herself does not want to Uve with her husband and she waiits to live with her parents. Apart from fhat the father of fhe appUcaiit is in a position to mamtam hls daughter. In fhe given situation, the appUcant is not entifled for any mainteiiaiice zmder Section 125 of fhe Cr.P.C. and as such die leamed Addltional Sessions Judge aUowed the criminal revision and set aside tihe order of learned Magistrate and consequently dismissed the Diaintenaiice petition. w^ -3- @ A perusal of fhe order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge reveals that fhe element of neglects or refuses to mamtain Sunita Devi by her husband Harishchand Kansari is not proved, as such fhere is nothing 011 the record which compels flus court to reach a coiidusion that the fiiidmg bf the learned Additional Sessions Judge is perverse or confcrary to fhe settled law, as such this revision has no force, die same is Uable to be dismissed and is dismissed. Sd/- L.C, Bhadoo Judge Barve r\^ <y^ ^