'v^..1 iy .^*'^;'iy^'^:'£s"^>:s'&.''**iS>-s8 IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (2271 N0. .^\^(, /2010 PETITIONER Non-appUcant Mukesh @Keshav Singh, S/o. Shri Owarsier Singh About 28 years, R/o. Kushwaha }2-/3^"^.[?-ff~^l Bhawan, Kadambari Nagar, .OVA .'.'-; •^^->..'ri-:"""' ——..—, -—„„-„...-Q , Durg, Distt. Durg (C.G.) VERSUS 1) Smt. Aasha Singh, W/o. Shri Mukesh @ Keshav Singh, aged about 23 years, R/o. Patliputra, Mopka, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Distt. BilaspurfG.G.) Eft- RESPONDENT Applicant WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE-227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA <^ ""•».. HK3H COURT OF CHHATTISQARH AT StLASPUR Smate Bench: Hon'bie Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra PET!TSQNER RESPONDEN- Writ (227) No. 2010 Mukesh @ Keshav -Singh Varsus Smt. Aasha Sinah Shri Anupam Dubey, counsel for the petiUoner. Shri ftiteiay Shri»^stavs,counseS for respsndent- WRiTPETSTSON UNDER,^nCLE227 GF THE CONSTITUTION OF ORAL ORDER (04.10.^)10) This under Artlcte 227 of the Constittrtton of Indi-a has been preferred by ths husband/nwi-apjriicant whom the Family Court, i'Saspur has an order him to pendentellte @. Rs.20CK),?- per monfrs to fche respondenffwife. (2) The mamage between the on 19-01-20C€. The responderst has moved an for grant of decree of 13(1)(a) of Hmdu Act, 1955 (for short 'Uie Act, 1955) before the FarniSy Court, on or about 22-02-2010. Accordlng to fli< respondent'wife she has cr<jelty tn her matrimomai and that the husband has to her charactar. (3) The respondent mo*?ed an for grant of maintenance pendenteltte SecfiQn 24 of ttie Act, 1955. it was stated in ttin appiication that sh& has no means of income and Shat she is on ttie mercy of her wherffis the peSBoner Is an ESeclridan in Uie Bharat Nlgam LinTted (for short 'BSNL'.) and is Rs.10,SXX)^- per monih, In 2-. addfifon, he has one eiectricaS shop at Durg from where he rsceh'es addlSonai Incoma. !n hls repty to this appElc-ation ttie petitioner ir fsffit he is emptoyed as dai!y wage Mazdoor under a contractor who is executing confract in BSNL and that tiie eiecteical shop belongs to his brothw. (4) Shri Anupam Dubey, teamed cswnsel for ttie petltioner wouid submlt that the ieamed Court below has altowed the appjication wittiout reeordlni any finding on tiie mcQrne of the petifioner and thus ttie impugned order iesewes to be mterfered Wf$h. He reHes on the judgment in ttie matter of Smt Vs. C. Lahshmmarayana In A!R 2W2 424 and In the matter of Smt Pushpa @ Posya Vs. of U.P. and reported in AIR 20G5 f87. counsel for ttie (5) Per confra, Shri -Shrivastava, respondent would argue that ttiere is rio peweraity in fte order ani the Is riot a whsre of jurisdfcljon under Articie 227 of the C&nstttuiion of India is warranted. (6) The respondent/w^e has made categorical statement in hls appilcation that ttie pefritsoner is eaming Rs.lO.QOO/- p>er rnonth as an in &SNL. Confroverting this the petflorier h-as fiSed a certtficate Issyed on ietter of one Akash ESecfrfcals signed by Din^h Kuma' that ttie petffioner Is working under Jas'flnder Slngh, confractor, who fe )erating a contract In &SNL. Thls is nefther signed by contractor Jasvinder Singh nor the fetter head is ihat of the said ccntractor. Asart from 'this there fe no other documente reiating to ttis sncome of the petitioner. "II ./ s -&.s^-is> -3. (7) Petitioner's reply tefore the FamlSy Court in to fr.e respondent's appiication for grant of interim m-aintenance is not supported 'with an affidavt. in his repSy It has ttiat he is eamlng Rs,2WO- 2500 per montti, whereas the fliat his is Rs.25<X)»'-. Thus white fi!ing reply, the p^ttioner not sure about his monthly '.nc-ome. in of rismg price index it is difficuit to believe ttiat a iike eSecfrtclan would be Rs.2S)0^- per monft. it appears that tti® petittoner te ronceaiing his real incorne and has not the Fafnlly Court m reaching to a conciusioR about his own monftty inconte. When peism/petitioner is employed in private tt is difficuft for wife to submlt proof r^arding his incorne, frierefore, it necessary for <he pstitioner to have produced document of dinchJng his income. in the absence of It'e p^it'oner ha'/lng submttted such proof. the Famiiy Court has not commftteu any error of jurisdiction by inaintenance @ 2000,;- per month after obseiving th-at Sooidng to ttie soda' status of the parties, thelr age, and prsce index, Rs.2000,'- per month be sufflcient as maintenance pendentelte for fte Wn6. (8) Ths judgrnent retted by the p&titioner are to the affect ttiat 'tihite decidsng ttie questlon of grant of Interim maintenancs the Court is roquired te teke into considerafion the income of the parties before deciding the quantum of interim mamtenancs and Ifte Court should endeavour to a finding about income of ttie husband. Tnje it is ttiat lhe Court shouid record a findlng r^arding Income ofttse husband,however jn a case iske this wh&n the peSSonerihusband has not submitted of his incsme nor has any ciinching proof by produclng certfficate of his emptoysr hls monttiiy Inccwie, ttiere is no ottier option wifh fte Court but to accept ttie i ^!^:^"^'-?'"-^' \,w xm ilj•^ 'tsS.. :BII !!i>!.. •^ pteadings made by ttie rKpondenfc'wife while fixing ttse amount of maintenance persd&ntelite per month. (9) Th!sCourtc-anROtfoigetthatftepresentisapetfBonunderArt,k;le227 of the Constitation of indla. in the matter of Surya Dev Rat Vs. Raf wd reported In 2W3 (6) S(X 675 the Hon'bSe Supreme Court h-as lald down frie principles that fr.e High Court, in exercise of 'ts jurisdictio" under Article 227 of the Const'tution of Sndia should not interfere for con'ecting mere error of iaw and that ttie exerelse of power shouid be sparingiy made m where non-interference occasion of justice or Uie applying for cannot ba sxcept by loteffering wtth the impugned (10) The is a the Famitv Court has the application for of malntenance. Rlghts of the parties has not beers se1 inaiiy. When the has faiSed to produce any dlnchira evidwice about hte income, fce Court has grantai maintenance @. Rs.2000,?- per month. The Is not on fte or is tothe 'ndex. (11) For -ait the abo\'e reasons, this C-ourt is not incHned to this petition whlch is hereby dismissed. No ordsr as to coste. Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge K