./!^& .rfy^ .^ I'e'-'V^ fc~ „ ..fiS®' '"°•''Bs'giSit1''"""' y APPLICANTS: 1. Sadhna, Vv'./o Ramcharan Kurmi, aged about 30 years 2. Sunit, S./o Ramcharan Kurmi, aged about 5 1/z years, Legal representative Mother Sadhna, W/o R.amcharan ^KP-*-!^? rs.ui i i ii Both are R/o Viiiage Devarhat, P.S. Lalpur, Distt. Bllaspur (C.G.) ^Cs Versus Ramcharan Kurmi, S/o Koushal, aged about 33 years, Caste Kurmi, R/o Viiiage Kishangarh, P.S. Pandariya, Distt. Kabeerdham (C.G.) {Appiication under Section 482 ofthe Code ofCriminai Procedure, 1973} NON-APPLICANT: Present: Mr. Pailav Mishra, counsel for the applicants. Sinale Bench; Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J (6-8-2009) 1. I.A.No.l, appiication for taking documents on record, is allowed. Documents are taken on record. 2, This petitlon is directed against the order dated 11-1-2007 passed by the 2nd Additlonal Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Mungeli in Crimina! Revision No217/2006 affirming the order dated 6-6-2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Ciass, Mungeli in Misc. Criminal Case No.58/2003, whereby learned Judidal Magistrate First Class has rejected the application for maintenance filed by the applicants under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants and perused the order impugned as also the record of the Courts below. 4. Learned counse! for the applicants submits that vide judgment & decree dated 8-4-2009 passed in Civil Appeal No.ll-A/2008, the 1st Additional District Judge, Mungeii, has allowed the appeal which was filed against the judgment & decree dated 22-4-2008 passed by the Civii Judge Class-I, Mungeli in Civii Suit N0.97-A/2007 and decreed the suit that applicant No.l is wife & applicant No.2 is son of non- .J-^^^^. •{r' .^ :)m3 applicant Ramcharan Kurmi. Learned'counse! further submits that on the basis of subsequent judgment & decree of the civil COurt which is binding upon the criminai Court, order refuslng maintenance be quashed. 5, I have perused the copy of judgment & decree passed in the dvii 6. After passing the order impugned, the applicants have approached the civil Court and the dvil Court has decreed the suit at the appeliate stage in favour of the applicants.' At the time of passing the order impugned, the said judgment & decree was not in existence. In absence of such judgment & decree whlch came in existence later on, the Court beiow has not committed any illegaiity warranting interference under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 7. Consequently, the petition is liable to be dlsmissed and it is hereby dismissed. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge ..i.-^iS'"^si' fflfaf^lSit?