← Library
Patna High CourtC.Misc./1186/2016dismissed

Anup Kumar Ojha v. Smt. Veena Devi

2016-11-24Mr. Justice Mungeshwar Sahoo2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.1186 of 2016 ====================================================== Anup Kumar Ojha .... .... Appellant/s

Versus

Smt. Veena Devi .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Madhaw Prasad Yadaw For the Respondent/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER 24-11-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

Perused the impugned order dated 16.05.2016 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Saran at Chapra in Divorce Case No.14 of 2015 whereby the learned court below has directed the petitioner to pay Rs.4,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the court below considered the fact alleged by the wife-respondent that the petitioner is doing wine business and according to the wife, he is doing wine business at Kanpur.

The grievance of the petitioner is that the amount fixed by the learned Principal Judge is excessive. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the wife-respondent submitted that in fact the amount fixed by the court below is liable to be enhanced

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1186 of 2016 (2) dt.24-11-2016 because the petitioner is getting more amount than Rs.50,000/- per month.

It may be mentioned here that this application has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction this Court cannot hold panchayati and fix the monthly maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The amount of Rs.4,000/- in these days cannot be said to be excessive amount considering day to day expenses.

Thus, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. Accordingly, this civil miscellaneous application is dismissed. (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J) Harish/- U