IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHA'I'I'ISGARH AT BILASPUR CRIMINAL REVISION NO. (gggg/ OF 2006 APPLICANT @ ; $2WG§ Pr§i Kubersingh Verma Son of Shri Chhagan Lal Verma, aged about 28 years, Resident of Village Tor, Tahsjl Dharsiwa, District Raipur (c.G.). «*- VERSUS NON-APPLICANTS- r 1. Smt. Babita verma Wife of Shri Kubersingh Verma, aged about 28 years; Ku. Phuleshwari Verma D/o Shri Kubersingh Verma, aged about 3 1A years; Ku. Shruti Verma D/o Shri Kubersingh Verma, aged about 9 W months; The respondent No.2 and 3 are through their Mother Smt. Verma, and presently residing at Boriyakala, Raipur (C.G.). natural Babna minors, guardian CRIMINAL REVISION UNDER SECTION 1 (4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Revision No. 635 of 2006 APPLICANT VERSUS RESPONDENTS ’ Smt. Babita Verma and others Kubersingh Verma Shri P.P. Sahu counsel for the applicant. Shri A.P. Sharma counsel for the respondents. CRIMINAL REVISION UNDER SECTION 19 (4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT 1984. ORDER ( ‘ 20.07.2010) *«1‘ This r‘evision is~direoted against the order dated 25.9.2006 passed by Principai Judge, Fa‘mily Court, Raipur, in Case No. 485/2005 by which the application filed by the respondents under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance from the applicant has been allowed and monthly maintenance of Rs. 500 to each of them has been awarded. 2, Brief facts of the case in hand are that on 18.10.2005 the respondents had filed an application ’u’nder Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stating that respondent No.1 is the wife ofthe applicant whereas respondents No. 2 and 3 are his daughters. It is stated that marriage of the respondent No.1 was solemnized with the applicant herein on 3.5.2001 and out oftheirwedlock respondents No. 2 and 3 were born. It is stated that the respondent No.1/wife was subjected to cruelty by the applicant and once she was even thrown out of his house and since then she along with her daughters is living in her parent’s house. It is stated that l ever since she is living with her parents, the applicant has not even} l bothered to visit them and know their well being. It is stated that even when the respondent No.1 had fallen iii, the applicant did not attend her or tried to bring her back. It is stated that the applicant used to compel her to sell two acres of her mother’s land and on refusal from her she was‘ brutally beaten by him. It is stated that monthly income of the applicant is l Rs. 10,000 and this apart he had got agriculture 'land also whereas the l respondents are not even in a position to maintain themselves, and‘ therefore, a prayer for grant of Rs. 3000 to wife and 1,500 each to daughters as monthly maintenance has been made. in support of their case, the respondent No.1 has examined herself, one Nand Kishore Verma (AW-1) and Moha‘n Lal '(AW-2) who have categoricaHy stated that the respondent No.1 was subjected to cruelty and once thrown out of the house by the applicant/husband. 3. ln reply the applicant/husband has denied the averments made by the respondent No.1/wife. s r 4. After appreciation of the evidence available on record the Court below haskawarded the maintenance of Rs. 500 per month in favour of ‘each of the respondents. 7. Be tha? as itlmay‘l‘it remains undisputed that the respondent No.1 is a legally married wife of the applicant and respondents No. 2 and 3 his daughters. From the record it is also established that due to cruelty meted out to respondent No.1 by the applicant, she was forced to live with her parents along with her daughters. The record also goes to show that the respondents are not in a position to maintain themselves. Taking all these aspects of the matter into consideration, the Court below has awarded Rs. 500 per month to each of the respondents as maintenance. The reasons assigned by the Court below in awarding maintenance to the respondents are well founded and no interference of any sort is necessary. 8' . In the result, the revision is being without merit is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. Order impugned is maintained. Sdl- Pritinker Diwaker Judge