HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Cr. M. P. No. 179z2007 PETETEGNER Ram Nihore Jaiswal, agadabont 32 yams, rfo Gullidami, RS. Bijuri, Tahsii Kotma, Distt. Shahdei {MP} Versus RESO?QNDENT Smt. Saxoj Bai, w/ o Ram Nihore Jai$wal, aged about 28 years, sf o Jamgahna, PS. Patna, Tahsil Bajkumhpur, Distt. Korea (C-G) Aggearance: Shri D.N.Prajapati, counsel for the applicant. gm ORDER £04.07.2oo7) SEINIL KUMAR SINHA; J. (11 Hsard on admission. i2) . This petiiion is directed against the order dated 20.4.2007 passed in Criminal Revision No.65] 2007 by the Sessions Judge, Korea (Baikunthpur) whereby the said Court &ismissed the evision filed by the petitioner against the order dated 17.8.2006, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baikumhp'ur, in Misc. Criminal Case No.18] 1999 whereby the said Court awarded the amount ofmo‘nthiy maintenance in tune of Rs.200[— from the date of application till 27.7.2006 and thereafter (Q Rs.3(30f - p.111. from the date of order. {3} The brief facts are That the respondent has tiled an application u/ s 125 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of monthly maintenance against the petitioner aiieging that she was legally wedded wife of the petitioner and While she was residing in the house of the petitioner, she was being treated with cruelty by the petitioner and his family members, which mim 7 r 2 constmined her to reside separately. She also pleaded that she was unable to maintain herseif, therefore, the monthly maintenance should be awarded to her. The petiiioner denied the relation and he aiso denied the aliegations pertaining to cruelty. (4) The trial Court, after recording eviiience of the parties, came to conclusion that the responcient was a legaliy wedded Wife of the petitioner, she was also being treated with cmehy and she was entitieti to receive the amount maintenance as above. The aioiesaid onier, passed by the trial Court was challenged in Criminal Revision before the Revisional Court but the revisional Court dismissai the revision and connrmed the order passeci by the trial Court. (5} Learned counsel for the applicant argues that. the findings reconied by the courts below were not in accordance with law. (6) I have gone through the orders passeel by the two courts below. {'7} It is apparent that both the parties had examined many witnesses in support of their contentions before the trial Court. The respondent had examined herself as AW. 1 and she had also examined Amrit Lal as AAA/.2 and Basmati Ram & Ramanuj as A.W.3 8r. A.W.4 . In rebuttal, the applicant examined himselfas N.A.W. i. {8) The trial Court appreciated the evidence of parties vide Para 5 onwards and came to conclusion that the respondent was ‘ legally wedded wife of the petitioner and she was being treated with cruelty, therefore, she was constrained to reside separately and claim amount of maintenance; and after recording such findings the aforesaid amount was awarded. l do not find any infirmity in the orders passed by the two Courts below walranting interference ufs 482 CLEC. This revision has no merits and the same is dismissed at the motion stage itself. t Sdl- ,7 ,iL, ‘ Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge CKMRNa 179/2007 Rao