^ COURT OF CHHATT[SGARH:_BiLASPUR Bench: , Hon7b!e Shri Diilp Raosaheb Deshinukh, J. Criminal Revision No.345^20QS AppSicant Di!dar S/o Chhedila!, aged about 36 years,0ccupation-busjness/cujtjvator, R/o Post & Village Ghaghara, Tahsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh (CG) 1. Smt. Jeewanmati,. W/o Dildar, about26years, 2. Ranjana D/o Di!dar< aged abouf 5 years, 3. Abhisekh S/o Dildar, aged abput 2 years, No.2 & 3 minors through naturai guardian mother Jeewanmati, All resldent of Saraibhaddar, Raigarh, Tahsil and District Ralgarh (CG) CrimrnaI^Revisioii under Section 397 read wlth Sectioo 401 ofthe Code of Crimlnai Procedure. 1973. Present: Ms. Sharmila Singhai, counsei for the applicant. Shri Santosh Kumar Twari, counse! for respondents. (Passedon 12-08-2009) At the request of iearned counsei for the parties, this criminal revjsion was heard fina!Ey atthe stage of admlssion. (2) Et is not in dispute that the applicant/husband ieveled allegations regarding the character of the non-appllcant No.l/wife in his testimony before the IVIagistrate. In my considered opinion, this by itself provides sufficient ground to the rson-appilcant No.l/wife to jlve separateiy from her husband. (3) , In this view of the matier, 1 am of the considered opinion that the First Revisional Court was -whoiiy justified in setting aside the order by the Judicial Magistrate First Ciass, Raigarh In yisc. Criminai ^r^ :.^3 <z-- Case No,44/2004 on 11-05-2005 and awarding malntenance of Rs.600/- per month to- the non-appiicant No.l/wlfe and Rs.300/" per month each to the non-applicants No.2 & 3/minor chiidren. (4) There is no merit in this criminai revision which is accordingiy atthe ofadmission. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Tumsne