v& IN THEHIGH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH AT BILASFUR Cr.M.P. NO^-^'O GF 2008 Siftgte^nch PETITIONER /I;^; ^^y^ ^.-^M.^ .^^ y Rajesh S/o Latel Satnami, aged about 45 years, R/o Village Nunchhapar, Police Stafioii Sahaspur Lphara, District Kabirdhain C.G. '( Revisioninst) VERSUS RESPONDENTS { 1. Nona Bai D/o Kaj-ihai, aged about 25 I1 ..:'.' ';'.'''?' . ,'. ,:. "• ;; . ;1. j years, Caste Satnami, Village Jhalka; 2.' Surendra S/o Rajesh Satnami, aged about 4years; 3. Birendra S/o Rajesh Satnami, aged :abQut 2'years; . '•:-;.. RespDndenfc n.Q. 2 arid 3 being ininor through natural guardian mother Smt. Nona Bai, present address Qf all responde;nt^:; ' viUage Jhalka, Pblice Station ^ancl^ Tahsil Award, District Kabu-dhamC.G. (Non-AppUifcants) PETITION ITNDER' SEE6 lON" ^ f "OF THE CRIMINAL PRQCEDURE CODE '•l'^.';-,\ ' ':::.-^'.'-' ' ' . :\,':,"~":.' .,. 1 ~ " Being aggneved by the^rder dated 25.2.2008 passed by the leamed' Sessions Judge KalMrdliam and presided over by ^Kiri R.C. •r,.-. BB l^^l lll"! s- HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench Justice Pritinker Diwsker 101 Sajesh Nona Bai A others. Shri Rakesti Pandey, counse! for the petitioner. . Shri R.N.Pandey,counsel for the respondents. PETETION UN&ER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF ORQ E_R .20li Heard o" admission. Pre-sent petition. is directed against the impugned order dated 25.2.2008 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kabirdham (Kawardha) in Crimina! Reyision No. 51/2007 Qgainst the order dated 14.9.2007 passed by th.e JudiciatJWagistrate, First Ciass, Kabirdhcsm (Kawar-dha) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 20/2006. Oh cn application filed by the respondents under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the tria! Court has granted Rs. 700/-, Rs. 500/- and Rs. 300/- respectively in favour of the respondents as maintenance omount, whereas the Revisional Court, in th.e reyision filed by the husband/petitioner, has reduced'the maintenance amount and awarded Rs.400/-, Rs.SQO/- and Rs. 300/- in favour of the respondents. 3. Counsei for the petitioner submits that respondent No, 1 isj no+ his iegatty wedded wife aid therefore she is n.ot entitled for any_ maintenance. He further submits that the respondents No. 2 -^^ .. ^-!'- -li .2^. 3 are not his chiidren and, therefore, they tooare not entit!ed for maintenance. 4. Both the courts below have given the concurrent finding that the non-appiicant No.l is the wife of the applicant and the non-appiicants No. 2 &3 are his children. Findings 05 given bythe courts below are based on the sufficient evidence and Justified reasons. I do notfind any^ground to interfere with the coricurrent findings of the courts below as according to me there is no llegality or perversity in thesams. 6. The petition foils and is accordingly dismissed at the motion stage jtself. l • PritinkerDiwaker ISI IB)