3mm mew ‘ . \obz/ Cytg N’BIE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH IN THE HO AT BILASPUR ICHHATTISGARI-Il w.P. 9g?) (c No. 7K’K\ 0f 2010. k3 /Rajesh Sharma, S/o. Sakhichand ’ Sharma, aged about 30 yéars, R/o.1ndira Nagar, B.M.Y.Charod‘a, District mfZwAwgiww é ....¢c L Durg (C.G.) PETITIONER APPLICANT WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226i 227 OF ITUTION OF INDIA ' THE CONST %\ ( v. k ii? versus .RESPONDENT Non—applicant :: / Shweta Sharma, W/o. Rajesh Sharma, aged about 27 years, C/o. Dhoopnath Prasad .R/o. Vishwakarma (Teacher) Qr.No.100/87 Shanti Nagar, Banki, District Korba (C.G.) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR $.B: Han’ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishm W W’rit Petition (C) No. 7221/2010 PETITIONER Raje§h Shawna Versus RESPONDENT : ShWeta Shanna Aggearance: Shri HB, Agrawal, Senior Advocate with MiSs. Pragya Singh, counsel for the petitioner. .WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE EONSTTTUTION OF INDTA ORAL ORDEE {13.12.2010) In praéeedings under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act initiated by the petitioneL/husband the learned Family Court has granted Rs.3000/— as litigation expenses and Rs.1000/— per month as Y h interim maintenance t0 the respondent/wife on her application under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act”). {2) Learned senior/counselr for the petitioner weuld argue that the respondent is running a beauty parlour and has Sufficient income. Morever, she is residing separately on her own accord and from her statement recorded in the court below, wherein she has admitted that she has spent Rs.10,000/— in these proceedings, it should have been t held that the respondent is capable enough to maintain herself and the t hrfpplication should have been rejected. {3) The news paper advertisement filed in this petition (Aimexure P—4) nowhere refers to the complete name of the respondent as the pergon or piace where the beautician course is to be conducted. In any case from this adveitisement itself it cannot be concluded that whether the lady is running the beautician course herself or only her contact number on behalf of some other beautician is mentioned therein. Further, there is no proof that as to what amount she eams from this beautician vocation Merely, because the lady has spent Rs.10,000/— in contesting the divorce proceedings, it cannot be presumed that she is capable to maintain herself. Argument regarding the Wife residing separately on her own accord isalso a question which is to be dealt with and addresed in course oftrial and not at this interim stage. (4) Since there is no dispute about the relationship of husband and wife and looking to the present price index, the amount of Rs.IOOO/— as interim maintenance per month and the litigation expenses of // Rs.3000/- is not exorbitant. (5) It is settled law that in exercise of powers under Article 227 the High Court cannot sit ini'appeal over order passed by the court below. (6) There is no substance in this petition, which fails and is hereby /. dismissed. Sdl- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge