$§§§¥e Earnw IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CG) WRIT PETITION No. ”713 /2oo5 / WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PETITIONER /7Punam alias Purnima Vaishnav, wife of Shri Sunil Kumar Vaishnav, aged about 27 years, daughter of r Shri Nand Kishore Vaishnav, Q >’ Dim W EE‘iEii féh§§§§agi?il)l‘°rmi’ aww-““ . "g: v" VERSUS RES ONDENT / Sunil Kumar Vaishnav, son of Late Girvardas Vaishnav, aged about 32 years, resident of Old Sarkanda, Tah. And Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) m mqi$ ($9.? 7( @aw (W) a? .5../....2.,...V_w[200§ $§$m ‘_ ' » mmmmr aiwmafz’ 6-1éaoos -‘.‘ Mr. 13.13. Sahu, counsel. Non€ p'mscnt en hahgélf mad€{ ‘ Ranim has élmady beer Heard leamed counsel f By this writ petition u India, thcr pc‘titiorlgr has q coxrécmess of the’order datcé District Juélgg, Bi1a$pur, W Judge rejected Ithé applicatip Section 24 of the Hihdu pendeme Me and €xpenscs patitioncr herein ls eammg 'a ShjkSha Karmi, ami as fa regpondent is already paying ' under the, order éf the Juaic; .undcr S€ctio11 125 of the Cod: > Having hcaxd leamsc‘i cc the pafition, impugned ordm‘ hexein‘ Prayer of the petitio exiagenses of proceedings; has k Shiksha Karmi, the, pstitionm for the tWO childrm sh: is am the mspomknt as maintenan CIPC‘ Tor the petitioner. 3f thc rcsgandént. NO rcprwéntafion 1:: V tiled on 'b6ha1f ofth.e_ mgpn‘ndent. r the petitioner, der Article 227 0f the _cGastitutiox£of cstionsd the lcgality, propfitity and 24—1-2005 paséca‘ by the 3rd Addin'onal emby ieamed 3rd A(l(1iii0n_al District of the’ petitioner hgrein mama-d under rxjage Act,‘ 1955,? for maintegance f pracee§i§1gs on the grounci that the " ent inceme for her livelihood bemg r the two chilchenv am coneemed, the 2&503] - for each. chiidren every month a1 Magistrate, 1“ Class, in preceeding of Criminal Pmccdum, Mnsel/fer the petitionery 1 have eemseci axrd return tiled by the respondenti‘ uer fer maintenance pemienie lite “rd reen rejected on the wand that being a i8 earning Rs.2,960i— oer month emit :ady getting Rs. 1,000,! - per month from 3e ailowance under Section 1‘25 of the / / SP/FS/zoos - 20,060 ‘ I:r!l.] s / a d /. ‘P’Wa “2005 mam (W) -, w W §qi$ {nu-"nun.- b mamlém'm amaréam - mawfa'aanéa ' , .-lv .i' ’ WW§wW $Wanésr As far as the ma‘interiénceyeruienie Hie is concerned, fhe order of learned trial Court. passled under-Section 24 of the Himiu Marriage Act, 1955, iS not in any‘w ‘V‘ petitioner is ajrsady sami 1g sufiiciént amount for her 3%41'vwhaod being a’Shiksha Karmi and she i$ also getting Rs. 1,000] - per month as maillte§lan€e aHQWanCE for the 1W0 Children. However, as 'féu" ae the; expenses of proceedings are concerned, it is true that the petition has hscn filcd at Bilasp‘lr, wh€maS, tht p€dtion€r is working at Ranigacn which is said t0 be more than 50 kms. away from Bilaspur and. the petitioner is required i0 come to Biiaspur to attemi The proceedings, Theretbm, to this extent the onier of the trial Court is not legally sustainable. expenses of proceedings, counsel and an manv occ to attend the proceedix cucumstances, it is just 2 an amolmt of Rs.4,000]- herein. in the result, the quaehed to the extent th. Rsv4,000/- to the peiitiont p Iion is allowed 311d the oreer impugned is g the respondent should. pay an amotmt of s :x‘ as expenses ofproceedings. No cost Parties axe entitled far certified copy of this W ay illegal or perverse for the ream-3011 t1 The trial Court ought to have granted as the petitioner is regimecl to engage the asions she is Iequired to come to Bilaspur Lgs or counsel. to brief her in the J nd proper that the respondent should pay as expenses of proceedings to the peti W’f i Sd/ L.e.BHI*D°° Judge SP/FS/2005 - 20.000 9% O, @‘x ?a