IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATtJRE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH Cr.M.P.NO ^ ^Vp^TITIONEI ^7—5€ ^f^ ........ Ballaram, S/o Amarlal Lodhi, R/o Udaan, Thana Chhuikhadan, Distt s fft/-o^ 16^ ^^.. ? Versus Rs^nandgaon(CG) t^? ^y RESPONDENT; Sunitabai, D/o Bahalram Lodhi, R/o Rangakthera, Thaaa Khairagarh, Tehsil Khail-agarh, Distt Rajriandgaon (CG) FETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMmAL PROCEDURE 1973 FOR C>IJASB][J<?G^F THE REVISIONALORDERDATED 07.08.2006 PASSEDBYTHE ADDITIONALSESSIONSJUDGE.KHAERAGARH.DISTRICT RAJNANDGAON. Ef •N tSSSSA SBiS ita.itayiitoOU"' Ras?i "^:^ BIM BSW SS-sSfS V9S XI-HC-78 sn^Tqirf^iw cCT3:n??Tg?:iR; ^l+1^rsb*11^i 3^'^iraRPT, aTfltf'ie, Rt<rtl'My 6^<~P4.P, .......t... >....»..>-... sn^r cra^; (yil^qi^£r) ^RnWBfN'an^ff 14.12.2006 Shri Rajendra 'ftipathf., counsel for the petitioner. Heard on admission. Orier passed as foUoi^s: C8RAL ORDBR (I 8UNIL KUMARSINHA. J. This petrtion is direc^ed against fhe order dated 7.8.2006, passed in cnuunal revisi^n No. 123/2005 by tiie Additioaal Sessions Judge, Khatragatjh, District-Rajnaadgaon. It appears that by the .aforesaid ord cnminal revision filed by under Sectiou 125 Cr.P.C.,1 granted a sum. of Rs.550/-| maintenaace to the respond) The brief facts are resisted fhe claun of the re whereas, he had tried his 1 tiNFa'fl-i Hitf<iT^'tecfl'<l'3it<;i< ^3ri^IT3[T^T .12.2006) :r, fhe leamed A.S.J. dismissed the PIC petitioner against the order dated 18.8.2005, passed in crimiijial case No.61/2002 by fhe Additional Chief Judicial M^isteate, I<)hairagarh, which was aa order passed by which, ttte teamed magistrate has per monfh as the ainount of monfhly •nt. fhat fhe respoadent had ffled fhe aforesaid petition on the gjround of cruelty. The petitioner had pondent aad had raised the plea that the respondent used to ficduenfty run away frosi his house and she was not properfy discfhaiging conjugal relations wifh hun, :vel best to keep the rcspondeat as his wife. He had denied the fact|um ofcruelly raised by fhe respondent. A.perusal ofpara 3 of^fhe inipugned order would show that a proceeding under Section 4|98-A IPC was atso drawn Japtween the XI-HC-78 3^'^IWRPT, ®Tl1«'IG,Rli'liuy 41^1 ^I* .^.-OA"P....(?.P...^ 2006 sn^wraq? ('ictt^sii^eT) sn^rqiT^iN; (PITSTR^Tshtllch ^RITWflf^TW^T -2^ +wl<-i<fl-i *iwfiTfftecA<l'»]wi< ^sri^iTsn^r parties and it coines in fhe accused persons guflty in ttj.i aid paragraph tfaat after holding fhe said offence, an appeal is penduig before the High Court. It is s]tated fhat a fatse report was lodged by the respondent under Sectk>4 the reapondent was enti^led^ monfh. Against the aforesaiif in. which the revisioDal court 498-AIPC. The trial Court hgld that to a maintenaace of Rs.550/- per order, a criminal revision was ffled, also took the snnilar view and after discussiug tiie-eiitire evidenc|e produced by fhe parties, dismissed the aforesaid revision filed by fhe petitioner. Before fhis Coiut, lea4ied counsel for the petitioner raised oaly one point. Hia submis ion is fhat the petitioner betongs to laboTir class aad the aaio^pit of maintenance granted to the respoudent is oa fhe h^her such amount to the responde de aad he is not in a position to pay It. This point was also rai^ed before the revisional court. Vide paca 20, fhe i-evisional courl) state ofafifairs, the aniount o| of nionthly luamtenance is q| iuterfere wifh the quantumax has considered fhat in the preseut Rs.550/- per inonth as the ainount tdte inoderate and it has refused to 'arded in favour ofthe respondent. The provision of Secti.o|n 125 Cr.P.C. are enacted for social justice and especialfy to pioljsct fhe women and chitdrea as also the old and mfinn poor pareB|ts and fatts wifhin the constitutional sweep ofArticle 15 (3) reiufoi The provision gives efFect to xd by Ardcle 39 of fhe Constitution. |natural and fundamental duty of a man to maintein his wife, chil|dren aad parents so long a^-they are luiable to mnintain theinselves _1_ P.T.O. \4\ XI-HC-78 sn^T^rR-iich trara'n^Taitiieb ,iuiwG<-' *<IN<TTai*1T^i 3^'^IFIRPT, aixdwis, Riciiuy __ C^..J)/?-P. QQ ^ 200^ sn^rirag; (^qfgg^ar) STaiwnfersn^r The above provision indicate fhat it te an essentidl l^ht of the same; iF fhe concemed is required to reasonable and moderate.?A cfintained in Section 125 would clearfy obligation cast upoa a peraon aad in e^itittement is established, fhe peraon |fuIGU obli^tion, if the saiae is •^i' In the opiiuon. offhis as inonthly maiutenauce by uow-a-days, is. a iuoderate| interference under the iahelre Cr.P.C. There appeara to be njo disinissed at fhe Diotion sta^i Nocosts. pourt, fhe ainount ofRs.550/- granted |the Courts below to ftie respondent, in amount, which does not warraat e|reut powers saved under Section 482 wife^frT iTm?ffff te'^t'^Rrezre ^ai^rsn^r merits in ttus petition. The same is iteelf ;—sd/~ Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge P.T.O.