Petitjon^rs ,? Resporsderst Cr.M.P.No.SiQS <?f 2007 1. 6ajra Bd Wifs of Shri Honlal Lodhi, a^ed about 30 years, 2. ftaju Son of Shri HortlQl L©dhl, aged about 09 years; Natural guardian through his mather ©ajraBaJ Bo1+> resident of Paterjhori, Pofice Station Deokar, Tahsij Diwmdha, bistfict burg (C.6.) Versys Honial Son of Shri Bfl^adur Lodhi, aged about 33 years, Resident of PuraJna, TohsiS Chhuikhadc^, District Rajnand9aon (C^.) (PETETION UN&EO SECTEON 482 OF Cr.P.C.) (SB! Hon'bleMr.T.P. SherWQ, -J.) JV^r. Abhlshekh Sharma, counsel for the petitioners. Mr.Ankush Mishra, counsel for the respondent, ORbER 0>sss©dOR 31st ^s^ust. 2009) 1. This petition 1$ direc-ted against the order dated 7.6.2007 pas^ed by the pctssed by the Additlonat Sessions Judga, Khaimgar+i, in CrJwifici! Reyision No.87/2006 modffyjn9 -t^e order- doted 10.5.2006 pas^d by the JudiciaS Magistrate Flrst Ctess, Khairagarh, in Criminat ^jC No, 108/2006 whereby Jearned Judlctat Magistrote Pirst Ctess ha$ awarded the amount of malntenanc^ of Rs.1000/- per month to each of tfie petitioners and reduc^d frorp fts.1000/- per mon1+i to Ss.WO/- per month to each of the petltioners. 2. The order is challenged on the ground without 1+iere being any Jegality and propriety, (earned Additlonaf Sessjons Judge has reduced the B/- amount of maintenance awarded to the petltioners and thereby committ'ed illegalit^. 3. I have heard feamed counsel for th@ partles and perus^d the order Impugned and records of the Courts befow. 4, Petltjoner No,l is wsfe and petitloner No.2 te son of Ifie responctent. OrlginaHy ma'ntenance of Rs.lOCX)/- per month each was awarded to the petitioners by the Judicial M-agsstrate psrst Cbss, Khairagarh. Same was chaftenged in criminat revision and (eamed revisionaf Court has reduced the amount of majntenance from Rs.1000/- per month to fts.500/- per month to each of the petltioners on the ground that the Court below has not considered the income of the respondent. The evidence adduced on behatf of l4ie parties show that the respondent is onfy son of hte father who is haying 3.98 hectares of the land, The respondent has not deposed ony^ing about his income and has tried to show that he Js tebour. 5. Admittedly^ the petitioner is able-bodied person. Taking into consjderation 1+^e present cost of Jiving, fts.SOOA per mon1+i each of Ifie petitioners is neither sufficient nor just ^iqintenance, inter alia, malntenance of Rs.iOOO/- per month each of the petitioners js Ju^t ftnd reasonabte under the fexcts and clrcumstonces of <the case, 6. Consequently, 1+ie petitjon is allowed. Order jrnpugned Is h^reby set aside and order of the Judicial Mdgjstrcrte Fir<:+ Cbss, Kh&iragarh is hereby restored. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge