IN THE HI6H COURT OF JUbICATURE At BILASPUR 9nM. No. ^i^ /2006 u -L^".. '^%'^ '..^< LV^.^^ vs APPLIC/INT : Vinod alias Vinay Shankar Kumbhkar, son of Shri Bhagirathi, aged about 25 years, resident of Village Pathariya, P.S' Pathariya, Tehsil Mungeli, bistrict Bilaspur. Laxmi Bai, wife of Vinod alias Vinay Shankar Kumbhkar, aged about 23 years, resident of Marka Police Station, Pipariya, District Kabirdham. APPLIC/tTION UNDER SECTION 482^F^CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCE&URE^J 973 NON-APPLICANT XI-HC-78 3T]^T»iirf?lf^ (Wsnwaw^' ~S:Sf "41^11d<4, (»T(1'M'I<S, Rtdiyy *11^1WI sbHlch Ch^.f...lcicU^I^TC / 200 341^1 l4d* (l;<t^sl^) ?TdTWHf?(T3n^T 28.02.2007 Shri Ghanshyam Patel, Heard on admission. This petition has been| Criminal Procedure against th^ Revision No. 11/2006 by the District - Kawardha. The afol' petitioner against the order d^ Criminal Case No. 13/2005 Kawardha in a mattsr fited und^' The brief facts are that under Section 125 ofCr.P.C. fo( petitioner on the ground of treat petitioner contracting a secon| aforesaid claim was resisted bl the claim before the Magistrat^ and her 3 witnesses namely and Rajkumar Kumbkar as A.Wf as N.A.W-1, Bhagirathi as N.A.V The learned Magistrate ^ She parties heid that the respon^ any reason and he also he!d tfl marriage with one Pushpa Bai he awarded a sum of Rs.400/- the respondent. Against the afc petiSioner filed a Criminal R< (pounsel for the petiticner. qiPlfefrT WMT'ff fei^t'(RfRR ^3TRrR'3:n^?T fited under Section 482 of the Code of order dated 4.7.2006 passed in Criminat Ad|ditional Sessions Judge i^TC), Kabirdham, 1'esaid Criminal Revision was fited by this ated 10/04/2006 passed in Miscellaneous >y the Judicial Magistrate First C!ass, jrSection 125ofCr.P.C. the respondent herein filed an app'feation grant of monthly maintenance against the ing her with crueity a.nd a!so on account of ift man-ia.ge with one Pushpa Bai. The ^' the petitioner herein. For substantiatins ^, respondent examined herself -as A.W-1 Di^khiram as A.W-2, Durgaprasad as A.W-3 -4. The petitioner herein examined himseff i|V-2 and Chamru as N.A.W-3. ^fter appreciating the evldence produced by i^ient was betrayed by the petitioner without |at the petitioner has contracted a second ^.ccording to Chud! system and holdlng so, |as the amount of montiiiy maintenance to ^resaJd order passed by the Magistrate, the i|ision bearing No.11/2006, in which, the --Q-.._^— _J^_- XI-HC-78 sn^TqiTf^riq; tpiT3:n«i<»)tii<ti Jt^K^ HltlCTI ShHltb 3^'^(RTT?pr, ^•(fltf'Ko, {S|<tiuy A.^'r'..n^:3± ^T 200 341^14ath ('i^t'i'5*^) WTTW^HfScTSTI^T ~2-.- Revisional Court after discussii impugned order, dismissed th^ recorded by the Magistrate an<: awarded to the respondent. It this petition under Section 482 ng the case of the parties in para 9 of the aforesaid revision confirming the findlngs atso confiuning the monthly maintenance |s against this order; the petitioner has fited bf the Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 482 of t!|i inherent powers of Hi^ Code shall be deemedl High Court to make effect to any order unij process of any Court or| |ie Code of Crimina! Procedure saves the jh Court. It provides that nothing in this |to limit or affect the inherent powers of tht s|jch orders as may be necess-ary to give iifier this Code, or to prevent abuse of the 1 otherwise to secure the ends of justice. After going through the| appear to me that in the prese] Court under Section 482 of Cr abuse of process of the Court the ends of justice. !n facf, thi^ garb of Section 482 of the petitloner, which cannot be In the facts and circumst] and the same is dismissed a.t th' ^rafefi^-HTfRff ff fec^r ^jsresT!: ^;3lRfq'3I1^T Oode entire record of thte petition, it does not |it case any interference is required by this 1.P.C. and a!so there does not appear any |or the matter requires any order to secure is a second Revision Petifion fi!ed in the of Crimina! Procedure by the same by this Court. ^nces ofthis case, the petition has no merit te motion stage itseSf. A.-——- --- Sd/- SunilKumarSinha Judge