IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-26647 of 2011 (O & M) Date of Decision: September 02, 2011 Bimla Devi & others .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Mani Ram .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate, for the petitioners. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing order dated 6.5.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal; and order dated 7.2.2011 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Revisional Court viz. Sessions Judge, Karnal. 2. Petitioners Bimla Devi and her children filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Bimla Devi claims herself to be the wife of respondent, Mani Ram. The Trial Court, after considering the entire evidence, has concluded vide impugned order, Annexure P-1, that Bimla Devi has failed to prove her relationship with the respondent. Crl. Misc. No. M-26647 of 2011 [2] There is no evidence on record to show that she ever lived with the respondent as his wife. It has been concluded that Bimla Devi is the wife of one Nakli Ram. 3. Petitioners carried a revision that has been dismissed vide order dated 7.2.2011 (Annexure P-2). In Paras 17 and 18 of the order, the entire evidence has been considered, in my considered opinion, in the right perspective. In the divorce petition, Bimla Devi herself pleaded that she is legally wedded wife of Nakli Ram and from him, she got children namely Mamta, Vinod and Santosh. 4. Learned counsel, in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has tried to develop a case as if it is a second revision petition which is not permissible in law. Learned counsel has not been able to refer to any piece of evidence or material that has been ignored by the Courts below so as to draw a different conclusion against the petitioners. Learned counsel, further, has not been able to draw attention of the Court towards any piece of evidence or material that has been perversely read so as to cause manifest injustice. 5. No ground for interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is made out. 6. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) September 02, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?