,A m HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR Writ Petition 12271 No. 5715 of 2009 Jai Kumar Dubey Vs. Smt. Vaijanti Devi ORDER Post for Order: g? 10/2009 m- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge 1/ 3‘ COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (2271 No. 5715 of 2009 Jai_ Kumar Dubey, S/o Rajmani Dubey, aged about 34 years, Caste— Bramhan, Occupation — Service, R/o Village Shantinagar, Shivnandanpur, RS. Vishrampur, Tehsil Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (CG) i Petitioner Plaintiff Versus. Respondent Defendant Smt. Vaijanti Devi, W/o Jai Kumar Dubey, (D/o Ambika Tiwari), aged about 32 years, R/o Village Marhatia, RS. and Tahsil Cradwa, Distt. Gadwa (Jharkhand) PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF \ Aggearance: INDIA Ms. Sharmila Singhai, counsel for the petitioner. ORDER g .1o.2oo9) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Being aggrieved with the last part of the order dated 13.8.2009 passed in Civil Suit (Matrimonial) No. 16-A/O8 by. the First Additional District Judge, Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.), pendente lite of Rs‘3,000/- and expenses of proceedings of Rs.5,000/— has been granted to the Wife/respondent, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. whereby maintenance Ms. Sharmila Singhai, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that the amount is excessive and irrational, therefore, the order may be set aside or it may be suitably amended. r\\¥gudge A perusal of the impugned order would show the learned trial ‘W\ has taken into account the income of the petitioner which Was 2 3% Writ Petition 1227! No. 5715 of 2009 .) based on documentary evidence (pay slips). The trial Judge observed (vide Para—2 at page 14 of the paper—book) as under:— @§W§W1955E§IW241§WW§§3 3HWW—mwa%wmwmwwmw,w temw$mwmwwa§§,m%l w$afwttamw§fwmmtt¥ra§rné§w WWWWW134220/—WWW§ mt W11,ooo/—W@té’ra®m§m% IWEEHW it Emit $ gm W gift En? W watt—2009, W—2oo9, W—2009$t—W$WW$W§§,WW 19,027/— W, 12,212/— W a 15,383/— Wei Eb°t W afEb—d% {Wmmwwmmatrwtatw WW$WWH§WHrWW§§tmWQ€T HEHEW1o,ooo/—W®WH§[§§% I” (4) In View of the above observations, made by the trial Judge, it cannot be said that the amount of maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings fixed at Rs.3,000/— p.m. 85 Rs.5,000/— were irrational or excessive. The trial Judge has kept in View the need of the respondent as also the paying capacity of the petitioner and has flxed a moderate amount in these accounts. (5) There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order) so far as it relates to. maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings, warranting interference by this Court. z (6) The petition has no merit, the same is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. / / it- Kimar S‘“ha . sunil Judge vatti / /