HIGH CGUE‘T {7F CHHATTESGA’RH AT EELASWJR grimmai Pawmgnry Mr 441$1?fm$ m Non-appiicams Apmicant Uhannu Gm, aged about 255 years, 3m 0f Shri Bhagwat (Em (w magi“; menticned as Sagtav}, rresidem’: 9f Aaciarsh Nagar Uiai, occupation — came marketmg {Purchase aw safe), RS. ma; Di$irici Burg ('C.$.": Versus 1'. $mt. Pfemiata aiias Hema'za GaswamL wife of Dhanna G'ri Gcsw M: aged ascu 25 years, res§dent of Aadarsh Nagar Uéai, Dist¥ic§ 9mg (CE), present!y resided at viiiage Khafa, Pwt Usag’wa’hi, RS. Rengakhar. Bisiric’: Kabeeréham {C.G.) The Staie cf Chhamsgam‘ threagh —- the Dismck Magistrate, Kabeerdham‘ C§EM1NAL REVI$§GN UNSER SEI’ZTICN 3E7 iiiENJ WITH 3ECT2QN 451 E a? ‘E'HE CQBE QF cRiMiNAL PRQGEDHRE, 1Q?3 1S3: Hon‘bie Mr. TP. $harma$ J3 $hri N.$‘. Uhuranéhar, counsei for the appiicam. Nene for the rim—applicant No. 1. Shri N. Naha Roy, Panei iawyer for i'ne non‘appiicani No. 2. I‘O Qra! Order (Passed e. 3am June, 2mg) This revision is directed against the order daterj 28.1 .2095 passed by Addit§onal Sessions Jucige (FTEJ). Kabeedham in Criminai Revision No. 25i2006 reversing the order dated 3.820% passed by Judiciai Magisrate First Crass Kawardha in Criminai NLJIC. No. 169I05. 2. Tho order is chailenged on the ground that the revisionai courr has not appreciated the evidence availabie on record and reached into wrong conctusion that the non-appiicant is having reasonable cause for iiving separateiy from her husband, therefore, she is entitied for maintenarace. 3. Though notice has been served on the non-appiicant No" ’i, but m One appearS Gh hei' behalf. 4. l have heard Shri NS. Ehurandhar, iearned ceunsei‘for the apoiicant and Shri N. Nahe Roy, teamed Ferret iewyer tor the non-applicant No. 2.!State and perused tire order impugned and records of the courts beiow. 5. Learned eounsei for the appiioant argued that after taking into consideration’ the’statement of the non~appiicant arid witnesses the triai court \ has reiected the appiication for maintenahce of the rich-appiécant No. ’i, o’er \\ same was aiiowed in revision. without any cogent reason. \ \ F o. According t0 statement of the non-amalicant N0. 11' i3remiata Giri, after her mawiage Sm was stayeci oniy for 2% months in the house of the applicant. The applicant used‘to torture amd beat her after consuming liquor. Mother of the agopiicant was also used to beat on the ground that she has not come with sufficient dowry. She has admitted in para-2 of her statement that when her in-iaw‘s sent her to his maternal uncle‘s house, then she directty went to her maternat uncie’s house. She has admitted in para-5 of her :3 statement that she has refused to go with the appticant and even she witl' not go with the appiioant. She has statedthat her Site would be danger. She has repeated the same thing in para-1' O of her moss-examination. ? 3R6cordtng to statement of the appiioant herseif that she was stayed onty for 2 1/2 months in his house. She has not restated the matter and has not narrated the story of torture and cruetty to any other person. Specific altegation of torture has not been proved. The appticant has atso fited petition for divorce and decree of restitution of conjuga! right has been gassed. But the non-applicant No. 'i has not compiied with the decree of restitution of conjugai right. it shows that the non—apptieant is ihrtng separatety without any reasonahte cause. Totatity of the circumstances and statement of the non- appttcant No. 1 shows that she is living separatety from the applicant without any reasonabie cause. Therefore, she is not entitied for any maintenance. 8. After taking into consideration the evidence available on recordr the trial court has dismissed the application of the non-applicant. but in revision the revisional court has allowed the petition. But, the revisional court has faiiecl to consider the factum of decree of conjugat right and refusai of the 'non-appticant No. i to tive with the appiicant and reached into wrong conclusion. “faking into consideration the materiai avaiiahie on record, i am of the opinion that the revisionai court has committed ‘iiiegaiitv by awarding maintenance to the non-apoiican’r. For the foregoing reasons. the revision foetition is aiiowed and the order passed by the revisionai court is hereby quashed. Q. »‘..¢ if). in view of the above, M.(Cri.)P. No. 429J2006 stands disposed of. Sd/- r T. P. Sharma ‘ JudgesM