HIGHM COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr.M.P.No.115l2009 § PETETIQN m UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE E’resent : Shm' Pallav Mishra, counsel for the petitioner. Shn' Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondent No.2. ORAL 01mm (02.03.2009) $UNIL KUMAR SINHA2 J. Heard. The responcient No. l and her mother tiled an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the concerned Magistrate, claiming maintenance of Rs.3—3000/— p.m. The petitioner contested the said application. The learned Magistrate after recording the evidence of the parties, dismissed the application tiled on behalf of the mother of respondeht No.1, Where as, respondent No.1 was granted a monthly maintenance of RS300] -. W i ” 7 i i 2 PETITIONERI Vijay APPLICANT Singh Thakur s/o Ganpat Singh Thakur, Agad 45 years, R/o Village District Janji Bilaspur (CG) pressntly pressntly residing at Villaga Lafa} Tahsil 8r. RS. Pali, District Koreba (CG) Versus RESPOE§DENTS 1. § Minor Ku. Sangeeta Thakur, aged about 2 ycaxs, Djo Vijay Singh ’I‘hakur, through mother Smt. Shyam Bai, Bai, agsd 33 y€ars, w/o so called Vijay Singh Thakur, By Caste Gond R/o Nagoi Khar Daxri, RS. Dani, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba(CG) 2. State of Chhattisgarh, through the District Magistxate, Korba District V C1‘.M.P.No. 1 1 5/2009 The afomsaid order was challenged by the petitioner before the Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, District Korba(CG) in Criminal Revision No. 49/ 2006, which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 22. 1 1.2008, hence this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the leazned Courts below have wrongly held that respondent No. 1 was illegitimate child of the petitioner. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. In para 8 of the impugned order, the revisional court has discussed about the evidence of Shyam Bai (mother of the minor— respondent No.1), Sharad Prasad Mishra and Janki Bai, and has come to the conclusion that respondent No. 1 was illegitimate child of the petitioner and then has dismissed the Revision Petition. I do not find any infirmity in the findings recorded by the two Courts below in this regard. The provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are enacted for social justice and especially to protect the woman and Children as also the old and infirm poor parents and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15 (3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India, The provision gives effect to natuial and fundamental duty of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents so long as they are unable to maintain themselves. There is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Courts below. The petition has no merits. The same is liable to be dismissed, and is accordingly dismissed at the motion stage itsel. L, sunita f