High Court Of ChhattisgarhWP227/393/2016dismissed

Chhote Lal v. Smt. Santoshi Bai

2016-06-28Hon'Ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WP227 No. 393 of 2016 • Chhote Lal S/o Tulsiram Aged About 25 Years Caste Gond, R/o Village Kesla, Police Station Baradwar, Tehsil Sakti, Dist. Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

• Smt. Santoshi Bai W/o Chhote Lal, D/o Narsingh Aged About 24 Years Caste Gond, R/o Village Hathnehra, Tehsil And Police Station Champa, Dist. Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondent For Petitioner : Shri Basant Dewangan, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 28/06/2016

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred to call in question the order passed by the family Court directing the petitioner to pay Rs.1,000/- per month as interim maintenance and Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses.

2. The petitioner has moved an application for issuance of decree of divorce. The respondent wife has moved an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking interim maintenance and litigation expenses on submission that the petitioner is working in Petrol Pump & earns Rs.10,000/- per month. Therefore, he be directed to pay Rs.5,000/- per month as interim

maintenance.

3. Having perused the order passed by the family Court, it would appear that the family Court has discussed the entire aspect of the matter to conclude that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner should pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- per month as interim maintenance and Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses.

4. Although it is argued that the petitioner is a labourer, therefore, he is not in a position to pay any amount to the respondent, however, considering the fact that he was earlier working in the Petrol Pump, therefore, the family Court has rightly drawn presumption that the petitioner being able bodied should maintain his wife.

5. Considering the meagre amount of interim maintenance and litigation expenses allowed by the family Court in favour of the respondent, this Court does not deem the present to be a fit case for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

6. The writ petition being devoid of any substance deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/- Judge (Prashant Kumar Mishra) Barve