Petitioner Applicant *3? CRIMINAL REVISION UIS 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT 1984. (SE .Hcn’ble Mr. .P Shanna, J ) Present:- Shn' Arum Shukla, Advocate for the applicant] petitioner. Shri Lokesh Singh, Advocate for the respondent. 5. @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRIMINAL REVISION No. 289/2006 Smt. Leelawati Gupta W/o Shri Raj Kumar Gupta And D/o Shri Veer Bahadur Gupta, Aged about 33 ycars, R/o Near MISSION CHOWK Kedarpur, Ambikapur, Dist: Sarguja —(C.G.) RS. Kotwali Ambikapur (C.G.). Respondent Shn' Raj Kumar Gupta S/o Late Non-Applicants Versus Motilal Gupta, Aged about 87 years, R/o Village 8r, Post —-Pradha11 Ki Bareji RS. -Mohmdabad Dist: Gajipur— (U P) ORAL- ORDER (Passed on 04/03/2010) By this criminal revision petitioner has challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated 30/3/2006 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Ambikapur at Sarguja in M.J.C. NO. 97/2005 whereby learned Judge Family Court has dismissed the application for maintenance filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1978 on behalf of the applicant. Order is impugned on the g‘ound that Court below has not considered the ground claimed by the‘applicant that she is residing separately from her husband under just and reasonable cause. Shri Arun Shukla Advocate for the applicant and Shri Lokesh Singh Advocate for the respondent are heard, Order impugned and record of the Court below perused. 4. Evidence of applicant specially Paras 11 85 14 reveals that them was normal dispute between herself and her husband and she is residing separately with her father. 5. After appreciating the evidence available on record. Learned Judge Family Court has dismissed the claim of the applicant on the ground that she is residing separately from her husband without any just and reasonable cause. The finding of the Court below is based on evidence of both the parties specially on the basis of evidence of applicant and her father_AW2 Veer Bahadur Gupta. Court below has not committed any illegality in dismissing the application. This criminal revision is s devoid of merits. Consequently, this criminal revision is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. T. P. Sharma l Judge, in ’i‘ .ar w . Sd/-