3^q'3IT2n'$!3T, ®Tf1<H'|(»,fs|<7M^^< MWM g^^-...- ........................................ .....^ 200 SIT^T iraq? (''pfgpqw) '^ 3fi^r.^i R;-<i't) wirsn^r gnrar \L'f-.. TCIIW^ftTT 311^1 BB: HUN'BL.B SHR! DHIRgNDRfll PETJTlONEg AsllO of Sl i\UI-i:lji-ipcli'a., Udi.ic.Lcti'cL, l Uil^c OLclLiai.l ctliu 'l'aj'is[l yemetai'a, Uistnct Uurg (C.u.) Vs. RESi'OKDEft'T S-9-200'7 Sn-it. Uistl ynn f.y. Salw., Advocate 10 yi-in Vaitinav Uovardnan, 4 'l'iie petitioner by tlie insts|: husbancl ancl Cnminal Kevision 11 revisions nave been rejected and Ks. 5UU/- per montn awarded upneld. Learned counsel lor the afl Botli tlie Couits tielow are per^ 'niilinqli ii*ifi'l" tf is^St <faf^l< ^ajf^nsiitg MISHRA, j. 'e. Kumai' yaliu, aged about '23 years, Kon (.ri RaTn&ishan Sa.hn_- Resident nf Villsi.Te. n-~^~= Q+--*-'--..- -to-' J ynaKun Uai Bal-iu, wile ot yiin Astiois: - Kumh.r SaJ^u= a_eed g-.bout 25 vep-rs. nresentlv ^ ^^ll^./^/^ Ct/^-^/J -^ T~>/^1^ /^.^ 0-l-rt4-^^^^^ n ^-».1/^ Lilg (AL v ilidgc OcU'Lla-, i'UlICfc; Olca.LKJIi. LJci-ici, ict L)urg lU.'J.I Uie petitioner. clvocate lor the responclent. nt petition has impugned the order dated 14" Piovember, ^'UUS passed m Cp.minal Kevision No. ^Ui-i/LiiUUo lilecl by the considered the tact that tne non-fapplicant-wite is Irving sepaj-ately without any just ancl sullicient cause sufficient means of Uvelihood as ^ plot and is consti-ucting a nouse ^iid turttier Uiat ttie non-applicajit has [He tias aclmitted at slie ftas pui-ciT.asecl a tiver ttie saiTie. He turther submits mat tlie contractect second maiTiage, tiovj li... i. o, 129/2005 liled Dy ttie wite whereby the the aniount ot maintenance at tlie rate ol :o tlie wile W tlie tnai Court tias tjeen plicant submits that tlie orders passea by :rse as both the (Jourts below nave not non-applicant wite nas not tie^n at>le to prove that the applicant has ever tlie Courts tielow on ttie basis ol ttie marnage card and voter list prod|uced by the non-appucant nave arnved_ to ^PRJ —FS/246— 2/2007— 50.0QO Ulllff w XI-HC—78 SrcT ^l<(lrt<<, giTfly'IS, (sfciiyy C^.fyi.P.^o.l75/o<> 1WRW *N|cb --• ••-••--•••-••••••--•••---•-^ 200 an^?r ^BRt (^fyiqg) 3I^I?iTf?;IR7 ^V SH^T shHi<^ Bi^--...^!s='s. / l!... u- •renwdftffCT^r 'tiiitd'h'i iwvS ^fs^ <rait$i< ^i'SJfOT 3)1^1 tlie conclusion tnat me applic^iit lady namely Keshai'bai @ Monn^ Un tne otlier tiancl, iearCiecl submittecl tnat both ttie t( clocumentaiy ancl oral evicierli concurrent • tincling ot tact that wite wno is unable to maintaiti sullicient means to maintain lllj 1 have heard tl-ie leaniedl recorcl. In tne opinion ot tnis sj-o} Delow is baseci on proper apprj and the same does not calll junsctiction vestecl under yecuopi 'l'he petition being devoid| is clismissect. ftas contractea second marnage with a Bai. counsel lor ttie non-applicant wite nas |ourts below atter due appreciation ot ;e available ^on recorcl, 1-iave recorclecl a |the applicant tias neglected to niaintain his fterselt ancl ttie applicant is possessed ot wile. counsel lor tlie parties. I have pen.ised tlie [llt, tlie lincting recorded by botn tne Uourts pciation ot me evidence available on recom tor any interterence m exercise ot the 482 ofCr.P.C. |ot substance is liable to be ctismissed and it Sdl- . \ \ pHIBENDRA MBHRA y Judge