HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Revision No. 161 of 2007 1. Smt. Chitra Patel, W/o Rupesh @ Rupeshwar, Aged About 3O years (At present 32 years) Caste Aghariya, Occupation Dependant. 2. Minor Kumari Siddhi, D/o Rupeshwar, Caste Aghariya, Aged About 13 months, (At present 3 years) Through Balimata Smt. Chitra Patel, W/o Rupeshwar R/o Village Khairapali, Thana Ambabhona, Distt. Baragarh (Orrisa), present resident"Villa‘ge ‘Ch'arbhat'a, ,VThanaf‘fKotra Road, Raigh'af,"‘“'Th'aSil and' Di’stt‘fwRaighar (C.G.) APPLICANTS VERSUS a Rupeshwar @ Rupesh, S/o Khageshwar, Aged About 31 years (At present 33 years) Occupation Service R/o Village Khairapaii Thana Ambabhona, Distt. Baragarh (Orrisa), present resident Karamchari Rajya Bima Nigarn, Chhetriya Karyalaya, 18 South Avenue Choubey Colony, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) RESPONDENT CRIMINAL REVISION UNDER SECTION” 19‘ (4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, 1984. (SB :Hon’ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:— Mr. Vinay Pandey, Advocate fo'r'the applicants. _ Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, Advocate for the non—applicant. ORAL! ORDER (Passed on. 07/03/201 1) By this criminal revision under Section 19 (4) of the Family Courts Act, ‘l984 applicants have challenged the legality and propriety of the order I dated 26/3/2007 passed by Judge, Family Court,‘ Raigarh in Misc. Criminal ‘Case No. 91/05 whereby and where under learned Judge, Family Court, ) Raigarh while awarding the maintenance to applicant No. 2 Rs. 800/— per ‘1 ' month and has denied the maintenance to applicant N0. 1 on the ground ‘ that she is residing separately Without any just and reasonable cause. As per case of the applicants, non—applicant is husband of applicant No. l and father of applicant No. 2. Marriage solemnized in the year 2002 AM 4,.4Mwa‘rw‘ thereafter non—applicant started committing cruelty and torture upon applicant No. l in connection with demand of dowry. ‘He demanded Refrigerator and TV which was provided by her father, finally she has lodged First Information Report against the non—applicant for commission of offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and application for claim of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was filed. By filing reply, non—applicant has specifically denied the allegation relating to commission of torture and cruelty and has alleged that present applicant N0. 1 is having illicit relation with one Uday Patel, Assistant Sub—Inspector whom applicant No. 1 has addressed as “Weir WK On the aforesaid grounds, she is residing separately from her husband. 3. After providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned Judge, Family Court, Raigarh has denied the claim 0f maintenance to applicant No. 1 and has awarded maintenance of Rs. 800/- per month to applicant No. 2. 4. Mr. Vinay Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, learned counsel for the non-applicant are heard. Order impugned and record of Court below perused. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicant No. 1 has proved its case that she is not residing separately without any just and reasonable cause but she is residing separately from her husband under just and reasonable cause that nonrapplicant has committed torture and cruelty upon her. 7.‘ On the other hand, learned counsel for the non—applicant opposed the Criminal revision and submits that applicant No. 1 is residing separately from her husband and she is having illicit relation with one Uday Patel, Assistant Sub—Inspector. Trial Court has examined applicant No. 1 Chitra r gk Patél twicely f1rst time on 30/ 6/05 and second time on 2/ 12/05. In her first evidence, she has admitted in Paras- 14 85 15 that in the year 1996 she was adopted by Uday Patel and her mother and father are residing at village Jabali. In her second evidence, she has admitted in Para—11 of her cross— examination that she has not narrated the factum of torture and cruelty to any member of her community even she has not informed the factum of assault made by non-applicant to her landlord. In Para—12 of her cross— examination, she has admitted that alleged person Uday Patel is not her real father and he is her adoptive father. As per her evidence it appears that she _ was adopted by her alleged adoptive father Uday Patel at the age of 21 years, which has not legally permissible. 8. Considering her entire evidence, allegation of non—applicant relating to her Character and the fact that she is residing separately with Uday Patel, Court below has denied the claim of maintenance to applicant Not 1. While denying the maintenance to applicant No. 1, Court below has not committed any illegality and order is not perverse. I do not find any ground for interference relating to denial of maintenance to applicant No. 1. As regard the question of enhancement of maintenance to applicant No. 2 is concerned, at the time of awarding maintenance her age was probably 2-3 years and while awarding Rs. 800/— per month maintenance to child aged about 2—3 years, Court below has also not committed any illegality. Applicant No. 2 is still at liberty to file application under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Consequently, criminal revision is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. (v