$§§é£§l£ Emmi C y F \O'UJ\ PETITIONER /:’ v Rifesh Shriwas, S/o. Shri Kedar‘ W UHNTI‘ Shirwas, Aged abouf 28 years, R/o. Bhar‘m‘i Nagar, P.S. Tarbahar', Tahsil and Disf‘r. Bilaspur ($6.) VERSUS RESPONDENTs : /: Ranjeefa Masih, Wife of Rifesh qgV RSgPWkA/7f/VW/4W/éwif Shriwus, D/o. Shri Nir-anjan ~ Mahis, Aged abouT 29 years, R/o. \Wtgwsyw Tarbahar, Near Rly. Crossing Ska/D ........ Ajay cycle sfore, Tarbahar, ..... Tahsil and Dish‘. Bilaspur (C.G.) fw gm: 53,}? WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTTCLE 2Z7 OF THE W“WWW j L , /, }5 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Pen'tion (227) No. 317 of2011 PETITIONER : Ritesh Shriwas Versus RESPONDENT : Ranjeeta Masih PETITION ER AR CLE 2 7 OF THE CONS ON OF mDIA ORAL ORDER (Passed on 20.01.201 1) ' 1. Heard on admission. 2. Legality and proprietary of the ordcr dated 19.1 1 2010, passed by the Family Court, Bilaspur, in Civil Suit No. 175—A/2009 is under assail in the instant petition. 3.’ Shri Ashutosh Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is jobless person and ‘ the respondent/wife is working in the Appollo Hospital, Bilaspur, and despite that the amount of interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been awarded against the petitioner/husband, which is per se illegal and the same deserves " to be set aside. I have heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the order impugned. i \p (y The counsel for the petitioner admits that in suppoxjt of his plea, nothing has been iiled by the petitioner before the Family Court, and therefore, the Family Court has passed the above order on the basis of material placed before it by awarding Rs. 2000/- as interim compensation and Rs, 3000/— for litigation costs which is just and reasonable and there is no illegality in the same; The petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or irregularity committed by the court below in passing the above order ‘ warranting interference of this court under Article 227 of the ' Constitution of India. It is well settled principle of law that this Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should refrain itself hom interfering with the order passed by the Court below, except in such cases where perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face ofthe record, which is not in the present case. The petition has no merit and the same is accOrdingly dismissed in limine. Sahu Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge