IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18796 of 2011 Hemant Gagan Singh Versus Anima Maitri Singh ---------------------------------- 02. 24.10.2011. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The husband-petitioner has filed this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 05.07.2011 passed by Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna in Matrimonial Case No.657 of 2008 whereby the learned Court below allowed the application filed by the wife- respondent under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.4000/- per month as maintenance and Rs.1,000/- per month to her son from the date of filing of the application, i.e. from 16.06.2009 and also directed to pay a lumsum of Rs.15,000/- as litigation cost. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that 125 Cr.P.C. proceeding is also pending and any order in this Matrimonial suit will prejudice the parties in the proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is dependent on his parents and has no separate source of income. The school which was running earlier by the wife has been closed now. The learned Court below without taking evidence directed the petitioner to pay interim maintenance and cost of - 2 - litigation. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the income tax return and other documents were produced before the Court below. According to the learned Court below from the documents available on record goes to show that petitioner has transferred some land situated at Hazaribagh and the petitioners has got income and the income tax return till 2007-08 has also been filed. The petitioner also admitted that he has got Rs.6000/- to Rs.8000/- income per month whereas the case of the wife is that her husband earns Rs.1 lakh per month. Considering the income tax return filed in the Court below, the learned Court below held that the petitioner has monthly income of Rs.15,000/- and, therefore, on the basis of that the impugned order has been passed. Now, therefore, in supervisory jurisdiction, this Court cannot substitute its own finding after considering the documentary evidence which have been considered by the Court below. It is well settled that in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, this Court cannot turn itself to an appellate Court. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I find no jurisdictional error in the impugned order. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. Sanjeev/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.) - 3 -