ginglo Bench 1N THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr.M.P.No. 2Q3 /2010 (SBA S/ o aged Yajendra Yadu, Yadu, Manishankar PETITIONER/ Non—gpplicant before the trial court. about 31 years, R/o Village Talakura, Police Station Korar, Tahsil & Distt. Kanker (C.G.) VERSUS l. Smt. Kiran @ Ishwari W/o Yajendra Yadu, aged abou 28 years. Ku. Mohani, D/o Yajendra yadu, aged about 4 years, minor guardian through natural Mother Smt. Kiran @ Ishwari, both the R/o Ward No. 4 Gunj line, Ambagarh Chowki, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) /, x APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. mimiwt [bran-{Jaw @‘12. RESPONDENTS Applicant’s before the trial court t %9~ HIGH COURT OF CHEATTI$GARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITINKER DE‘WAKER CR.M.P.NO. 283 / 20 10 Yajendra Ya1h1 V€TSHS PETITKONER RESPONDENTS Smt. Kiran @ Ishwari & Another Shri N.K.Chatterjee, counsel for the patitioner. PETITION UIS 4—82 OF THE CR.P.C. ORDER {28.04.2010} Heard on admission. The prassnt petition flled under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against tha order dated 17.2.2010 passed by the Addiu'onal Sessions Judge (FTC) Rajnandgaon in Cr. Rev. No. 88] 2009 'whereby the learned revisional Court has aiiirmed the order dated 13.7.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambagarh Chowki in M.Cr.C. No. 154] 2007. 2. Undisputed facts are that respondent No.1 is Wife of the petitioner whereas respondent N02 is his daughter. The marriage of respondent No.1 was soiemnized with the petitioner on 11.5.2005. In the application tiled by the respondents under Section 125 Cr.P.C., it has been contended that respondent No. 1 lived with the petitioner happily for about 10-12 days and thereafter she was subjected to cruelty by the petitioner and his / family members and there was a demand of one tractor and Hero Honda motorcycle. It has also been alleged by the wife] respondent T l No.1 that on various occasions not only she was subjected to 1 cruelty but she and her family members were threatened/by the ; petitioner and therefore she is living with her parents. 3. After recording the evidence and appreciating the same‘ learned Magistrate has granted maintenance of Rs. 1000 per month in favour of respondent No.1 and Rs. 500 per month in‘ favour of respondent NO.2. The revisional Court has aimed the said order of the Magistxatg. sed tha ord€r of both the Courts below and I fmd d. Even otherwise a very meager low and 4. I have pew no illegality in the order impugne maintenaoce amount has been awarded by the Courts be yetition has no substance the same cannot be interfered with. The and is accordingly dismissed at. the motion stage itself—.r - Y 'tm"e k Y“ ytége / t \ u n