Arjun Ram v. Rubi Devi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.1411 of 2016 ====================================================== Arjun Ram .... .... Appellant/s

Versus

Rubi Devi .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Anirudh Kumar Sinha For the Respondent/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER 20-12-2016 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the impugned order dated 05.09.2016 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Samastipur in Divorce Case No.39 of 2015 whereby the learned Court below directed the husband-petitioner to pay Rs.2000/- per month as maintenance in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the order of the High Court, the petitioner is already paying Rs.750/- to the wife-respondent. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the Court below considered this aspect of the matter that while granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner, the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.750/- to the wife.

When the Court below has considered this fact and has directed the petitioner to pay Rs.2000/- per month as maintenance

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1411 of 2016 (2) dt.20-12-2016 2/2 in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court cannot go into the disputed questions of fact, i.e., the quantum of the maintenance and fixed the quantum of maintenance by holding Panchayati. Thus, I find no reason to interfere in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. Thus, this Civil Misc. application is dismissed.

(Mungeshwar Sahoo, J) Sanjeev/- U