W W www.mmm CU‘MDNO W23 7/Q0Q?’ W200 WW WW éawm OI De}: uty Directnr, Hauling, Road No. 1. T.T. Nagau‘, Buopeu 1 a (Mix) bruu unmmVuRk Mam, J A§hwarri Knmal" aggd abgut 59 yParQ, Qnn S‘rm Samaram Sendre, K10. Keta. Town. 311d Country Aahwgqi Kumar Sandra > R/Q I Poiice Stairion— Pafhariya, ..-._.. V», ... -v‘.» By thiS petiiion undsr SFction 482 of C1‘.P.C., the pETitioner has impugnec} the order €1ated 5th J1me, 2006 passed in Criminai Revision No. 154i 2005 whereby 1earned Second Additionai Sessions duage (MU), Mungeu mas e respomknt—Wife dank} 5m ant grantad to her in tha applicati Rs. SGGf— to Rs. IOOOI- pm“ m Learned counsel for tn majntanance was passed in f3 duaimai Maglstrato b‘lrSt Ulas and accordingly tho awaxri 01 was paSsed. The non—applica 127(1. of the C1‘.P.C. and pray awarded 011 the ground that llowed the revision preferred by the 1 enhanced the amount 01 mamtenance an under Section 127(1) of Cr.F.C‘ from 011m . e appiicant submits that the order of wour of the respondent by Lok Adaiat- s, Mungeii vide order dated 28—9— 199‘! 'Rs. SOOI- per month as maintenance at moved an appiication under Section ed for enhancement of the maintenance at the time of passing of the order, the Shn Utkarsh Vernia, Ad vocate for the applicant. I Janki Bai, aged about 49 years, wife of Shri Dardgaon, Tphgil- NhIngPH ni§ffv Biaspur XI—HC-22 WW,WW mm mm . OKWQNbg—KUQQO? EFL 200 ma mmmw A 2/ WW wW $Wm ap'piicant-husband was earning Rs, 4,00G/— pm‘ month Whm'eas 110W he is earning Rs. 10,000[— per month and the amount of V maintenance/is inadequate to imaintain her. However this application was miectmi by the ieaxned J‘Ludiciai- Magistrate First Ciass with an observa’tiOn that the respondéfnt—Wife has failec‘t to prove that she is not abie to maintaill herself d the revision pleferred against that order, has been ailowed by " e impugned order anti the amount of maintenance has been enhanced from Rs. SOOI— per month to Rs. 1060] — per month. Learneri counsel for the applicant—husband submits that appiication under Section 127(1} of the Cr.F.C. was not maintainable at the first instance because apphcation under Section 127(1) of C1‘.P.C. is maintainabie Where the appiication under Section 125 of Cr.P.C‘ has been allowed. Sinige the order of maintenance in favour of the Wife was passed on the iniptuai consent and there is no finding as contemplated under Section 125 of ULRC. Whereunder maintenance is to be awarded Where the h‘hsband neglects or refuses to maintain his wife inspite of having sl‘ "icient means to maintain her, the application under Section 12¢ of CLEC‘. was not maintainable. 1 am unable to accept the argumiznts advanced by the counsel for the appiicant. The order is passeh only in the application under Section 1'25 of Cr.P.C. however the same was disposed of with the mutual consent and accordingly maintenance of Rs. SOOI— was awarded by the Judicial Magistrate First Qilass. XI—HC-22 mm,mm [W'T%éf@‘§ . “w.“.zg7 ulna" $ul$ 200 E m an Wm mm mmmw WWW fgétWK é:Wm A 4 _ L.‘ The revision bemg devoid of substancs is liable to be dismiSsed a11d the same is accordihgiy ('liSmissed at admission stage itself. i f sm- s I DHIRENDRA MISHRA :’ Judge