^[^ PETITIONER/ HIGH COURT OP CHHA1TISGARH AT Cs-iaiaal Revtsioa Mo. 132/300S Saatosli Bhaiya, S/o F'ul Siiigh aged about 25 years, R,'o Baghaud P.S. Dabhra, District Janjgir-Chaiiipa (C.G.) at present residiag at Qr. No. 1380 HTPP Colony, Darri, Korba (West) Distiict Korba (C.G.). VERSUS FTt®"f 1 i 1 Snrt. Fuleshwari Bflaiya, W/o Saiitosh Bhaiya, aged about 24 years. Kv.. Jaavi, D/o Saatosti Bhaiva, aged about 1 1/2 years fhrough natural guardiaa (m.ofh.er) Sm.t. Fuleshwari Bhaiya, Botii residents ofQr. No. 525/4-A Balco Nagar, Tahsfl aiid District Kortoa (C.G.). iAL REVISION SECTION 19(41 GF THE FAMILY COURTS 'ble Mr. TJ Present: Shri Imtiz Ali, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arun Shukia, Advocate for the resDondents. 2. 3. 4 This petition is directed against the order dated 3/1/2006 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Korba in M. J.C. No. 65/2005 whereby Judge, Famlly Court Kor.ba awarded the maintenance Rs. 900/- to non-applicant No.1 and Rs. 500/- to non- applicant No. 2. Order is challenged on the ground that non-applicant No. 1 is living separateiy from her husband without any reasonable cause. The learned Judge Family Court has not consldered the income of applicant. Applioant is having no income and awarded malntenance. Shri Imtiz Ali, Advocate for the appiicant and Shri Arun Shukla, Advocate for the non-applicants 'neard. Order impugnsd and copy of document filed on behalf of the applioant perused. 5. It is argued on behalf of the appiicant that applicant is having no Income and non- applicant No.1 rssiding separateiy from applioant without any reasonable cause, he is reacy and willing to take non-appiicant No. 1 with him. The maintenance aiAiarded is excessive. 6. On the other hand, order impugned is supported on behaif ofthe non-applicants. In order to apprsciats the contention of the-parties, 1 examined the order impugned and copy of the document filed on behalf of the applicant. Reia'jonship is not disputed. Applicant is physically or menta!iy not unfit he is abie bodied man. According to order impugned non-applicant had lodged the FIR against the aDDlicant for commission of the offence punishabie under Section 498-A of the Takina into consideration the matenal availabie on record trial Court has awarded the maintenance as afore-mentioned, considering the present cost of li'.'lng maintenance awarded is not excessive. According to order impugned app!icant is a electrician having some income is under obiigation to msintain the non- applicants even he is having no any income then he is ab'e bodied man liable for maintenance. Triai Court has not committed any iiiegality or infirmity in the order impugnsd, i do not find any merit in the revision petition it is liable to be dismissed and 'nereby dismissed at the stage of admission. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge