•"^•4 i^^i IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH CIVIL REVISION N0. ^^ /2004 APPLICANT / MANQJ KUMAR GHIRHEY S/o. Shatrughan Ghirhey Aged about 26 years, R/o. Gram Karumoha, Post - Bundeli, Chowki- Rajgamaar, bistrict - Korba (C.G.) VERSUS Nj^N-APPLICANLT .SMT. MEENA ANUPAMA 7~'":^w <';; 7 ^ ^ ^ .-'yy b/o. Shantilal (clearly not mentioned in the order sheet) Khare, Aged abouf 22 years, R/o. Semipali, Post - Kudurmaal, Police Chowki - Urga, bistrict & tehsil - Korba (C.6.), CIVIL REVISION U/SEC. 115 OF THE CObE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1 ^) XI-HC-78 *ii*twi^*rT^ vjw=| "qiqioo; tP-a1xi<l<e, RoiXiyx .C.:^..'.^.Q... 3TI^?T ^pSf) (^c|I^6|<^) W^ 200 3TT^$T^TRrli<P WH3n^$T^b^i<b S^ITW^Rd OT^^T cpl<4[o<Tlx1HI<1oT^'f^Q' xR»1<<-$IK ^3rf^T3n^$T 07/10/2005 c ShriGurudev Sharan, None for the non-applicant| Heard o admission and on| Applicant has filed a suit suit non-applicant - wife of application under Section 24 o\ maintenance and expenses of application on the ground that sh^ Learned trial Court held Co^insel for the applicant. . i|M.C.P.No.1555/2004. ft>r divorce against non-applicant. In that |the applicant appeared and filed an the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of |;he proceeding. Applicant opposed the isliving inadultery. |that whether non-applicant is living in adultery or not is a matter of enqpiry and as undisputedly non-applicant is legally wedded wife of applicant interim maintenance Court expenses. pplicant,| therefore, vide impugned order granted of Rs.TpO/- per month and Rs.1500/- towards Under Section 24 of th4 Hindu Marriage Act. if wife has no independent income, sufficient f^r her support and necessary expenses of the proceedings, Court may otder the husband to pay the expenses of the proceedings and monthly mapntenance. The dispute of adultery does not create any bar iri allowing mfemtenance or Court 9xpenses^_^__ XI-HC-78 *11*101 ^mq» Vj-cq'-qiqio*!, tyTn^«l<»,|Rcl)IKiyX c<2- l^o/ol1 3TI^?T tRq? (ljc|l^<s|<£;) ^F^200 3T1^?TWRii<p n^T3TT^$Td)^J<h (- raju ?T?TTW^Tf^T W^^T The maintenance and COL higher side. The order passed interference; therefore, the revisi and is accordingly dismissed. In the light of above ord^ 3245/2004 and 258/2005 stand di^ <PI<lTo41v1 *11HoT1^'I^<-3 xRt^lX ^3rf^T3n^$T |rt expenses allowed are not on the \>y the trial Court does not call for any |?n is liable to be dismisged summarily ^r, M.C.P.NOJ555/2004 ^nd I.A.Nos. ^posed of. Sd//- F V.K.Shrivastava / ,— Judge | i.