^h^ HIGH_COuRTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP,(227) No. 3942 pf2009 Vs. Post ofpronouncement ofjudgment and orders on £?/08''2009, Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge ^'J1^-^. \..i /yt~ \ •<;^ •. ri- ^^ -^ ^-^^; itl^'y^ '"""^T'-W^''"' Ai HIGHCOLTRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WJ. r227)No. 3942 of2009 Gu!am Mustafa, S/o Abdul Hairud, aged about 35 vears, R./O Villase Mahamava Para, besides Navagarh Canal, PS & Tahsii Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG). Sabiran Bibi, Wd/o Abdul Hamid, Aged about 58 vears, R/o Mohalia-Paradand (Mominpara) Nagar PS & Talisil Aiabikapur, District Surguja (CG). Writ Petition under Article 227 ofthe Constitution oflndia (Single Bench: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Agarwal, J.) ient : Slni Manoj Paraajpe, Advocate for the petitioner. None for tlie resoondent. ORDEI (Passed on ^_day Feelmg agerieved by 'the order dated 18-6-2009 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 05/2008 by Family Court, Ambikapur, Surgiya whereby the applications preferred by the petitioner/non-applicant under Order 6 Rule 17, C.P.C. and under Order 1 Ruk 10, C.P.C. have been rejected, the iastant petition has been filed. Brieffacts ofthe case ar-e that the respondent along with her husband Abdul Hameed, the old and infinn parents ofthe petitioner filed an apDlication under Section 125 ofCode ofCriminal Procedure. 1973, claiming maintenance to the tune ofRs. 3000/- per month in the year 1999. Tiie application was hotly contested by the petitioner herein by filing his reply, however this fact v/as admitted by ihe petitioner ia para 6 of his reply (Ex.P-3) that his fatlier is not getting any pension as there is no facility of pension to retired employees of 11111 ^~. \~Itf^ '•l*;v. V'^--'-' M.P.S.R.T.C. The order of iaterim maintenance passed by the trial Court was challenged by the petitioner in revision as we!! as before this Court under Seetion 482 of Cr.P.C. unsuecessfiillv. In between fhe petitioner's father died in the year 2005 and an application has been filed by the respondent herein for deleting his name from the cause title of fhe petitioR. By the impuened order, leamed Court below allowed the respondent to delete the name ofhis husband i.e. father ofthe petitioner. Vide impugned order, the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Ruls 10 C.P.C. to implead Us other brothers as party in the case and also an amendment application was rejected by the trial Court. The application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. was rejected on the gi-ouad that it is for the respondents to claim mamtenance agaiiist any ofher son and the court caimot direct fhe respondents to claim maintenaiice against any specifie son or aaamst several sons. Tlie amendment application was dismissed on tue ground that the WTitten statement has been filed by the petitioner on 22-8-2000 aiid thereafter after about 9 years, the amendment has been souglit which is aeither bonafide nor necessary and such belated application has been filed in order to delay the proceeding. LeaiTied counsel for the petitioner Shri Manoj Paranjpe would submit that although the amendment souglrt was after framing of issue in the matter as this was necessitated due to events subsequently took place and therefore, the said amen'dment ought to have been allowed by the Family Court. By placing reliance upon the judgnient in Baldev Siiigh and others -v- Manohar Singh and anr etc. reported in 2006 AIR SCW 3956, Ramchandra otfaers reported in 2007 AIR SCW 4583, Gautam Sarup -v- Leela y' Jefly and ors. Reported m 2008 AIR SCW 4113 and AIR SCW 2895, he submitted that the ratio laid down bv the Supreme Court in case of Vidyabai and others -v- PadmaiatJia and Aar. reported 2009 AIR SCW 899 is not applicable in the facts and cu-cumstances ofthe present case and therefore, the petitioa desen'es to be allowed. 4. I have careflillv eone thi'ouah the order impuened and material placed on record. In the facts and circumstances ofthe case, it is clear that the petitioner is being represented by counsei. The deceased Abdul Hameed was his fathei'. He admitted the fact tliat his father was not getting any pension after 1-iis retirement; the instant application for maiiitenance is peading since 1999; the proceedmgs are sumnian' m nature and, therefore, after considering t!ie overall . facts situation ofthe present case, tiiis Court is satisfied that there is no illeeality or infiiTnity in passing the order impugiied leading to manifest mjustice to the petrtioner so as to invoke extraordmaiy jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Accordinglv, the petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. -'atfaak Sdi- N.K. Agarwal Judge