← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/11477/2015dismissed

Santosh Kumar Singh v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2016-04-29Mr. Justice Mungeshwar Sahoo2 pages

Patna High Court CWJC No.11477 of 2015 (2) dt.29-04-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11477 of 2015 ====================================================== Santosh Kumar Singh .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

State of Bihar & Anr .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sc11- Ashok Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER 29-04-2016 It appears that the State of Bihar has wrongly been made party in this writ application, therefore, the name of respondent No.1-State of Bihar is deleted.

Heard learned counsel, Mr.

Yogesh Kumar, appearing for the petitioner.

2.

By the order dated 20.03.2015, the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 6000/- per month as maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act in Matrimonial Case No. 742 of 2011. 3.

Perused the order passed by the court below.

According to the wife-respondent, the petitioner is getting Rs. 40,000/- per month. Admittedly, the petitioner is working in a Galaxy Company and on behalf of the company, he is doing construction of tower for Airtel and Vodafone. According to the wife, his monthly income is Rs. 42,000/-. Considering the

Patna High Court CWJC No.11477 of 2015 (2) dt.29-04-2016 argument of both the parties and also considering the day to day expenses, the court below has directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 6000/- per month.

4.

So far the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the amount directed by the court below is excessive is concerned, it may be mentioned here that in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, this Court cannot substitute its own finding for the purpose of supervising the order passed by the court below and, thereby, this Court cannot hold Panchayati for the same purpose.

4.

In view of the above fact, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J) brajesh/- U