‘ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHI BILASPUR g Crlmlnal Misc Petmon No 153 of 2008 PETITIONER Smt Balo Thakur, W/o Shrl Naresh " ; ‘ Thakur, VIlIage ged Banlyagaon, about 35 years, Thana R/o ; ~ > Kondagaon, TehsH Kondagaon, Dlstt ‘ f Bastar (C G ) VerSUS RF§PONDENT Naresh Thakur, S/o Shrl Badrmath Thakur, ged about 40 years, R/o i Village Badaloor, Thana Mardapal , Tehsil Kondagaon, Distt Bastar ‘ (CG) ‘ {Miscellaneous petition under Sect.ion 482 of the Code of Criminal l ‘ Procedure, 1973} Present Mr Alok Dewangan counsel for the petltloner Mr WaSIm Mlyan, counsel for the respondent Single Bench: Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORAL ORDER (8-9-2009) 1 This petition under Section 482 of the Cr P C is for quashment of the E order dated 17 4 2007 passed by the Additional Sessmns Judge (FT C ), ondagaon in Criminal ReViSion No 3/2007 dismissmg the criminal reVISion for want of prosecution and the order dated 9 12- 2004 passed by the JudiCIal Magistrate First Class, Kondagaon in Misc Criminal Case No 49/2003 whereby the application for A maintenance filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground that ; the petitioner is not legally wedded Wife of the respondent 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned order of the trial Court and record of the Courts below. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner & the respondent were residing together for long time and presumption of i I: i i valid marriage may be drawn, but the Court below has committed i‘ illegality by not drawmg presumption and the reVI5ional Courti /\ instead of deciding the reVi5ion on merits has dismissed the reViSion ‘ ‘ ‘ for want of prosecution. 4 Order Impugned reveals that the reVISIon was not admitted for conSIderatIon and at the Inltlal stage the reVISIon was dlsmlssed In _\ absence of the petmoner. The petlt|oner herself has speCIfucaHy ~ ‘ adrrtittéd in her cross examlnatxon that she has not married the V respondent and even the marriage was not pOSSIbIe In their custom In the llght of speCIfIc admission of the petitioner, the trla| Court has ' ‘dlsmlssed the apphcatlon for maintenance flied on behalf of the petitioner Under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. only legally wedded Wife * Is e titled for maintenance In the present case, statement of the ' petitioner ls suffIClent to disprove any lawful marriage and In the Hllght of the statement of the petitioner, no presumptlon can be drawn for lawful marrlage on the baSIs of long Ilvmg together The ‘ trlal3Court has not committed any Illegallty Therefore, this petltlon Is not mamtamable, It Is liable to be dismissed and the same Is hereby dismissed. l l sdl. l