\\ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISCIARH BILASPUR 3mm BEMH A43} WP (Cr.) No. 7_7_§_‘_5§ / 2006 Petitioner/ Non-Applicant /,Satish Kumar 28 Yr. S/o Lochanram Dindore, V111. G-Cabin, H’No.504, Charoda, GRP Charoda, PS Bhilai—III, Durg(CG) VERS US Respondents/ (,1; Rekha Kumari, 23 Yrs. w/o Satish Kumar z‘ 2 Nikhil, 3 Yrs. K3. Sahil, 8 Months R/2—3 By Guardian Mother R/l 2&3 are alleged t0 be S/o Petitioner which is denied in weddings before court below All R/o Tata Line, Qtr. No. 69, Camp N0.-1, PS Chawni, Bhilai, Teh; & Distt Durg Applicant PETITION U/ART. 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION XI—HC—78 mw,m,f§amgt ww o @ ?s§3 WW...§O00¢0¢0¢‘oooow¢oo In zooé 'mmm WWW m m m m WW<W> WW§WWA ‘ %3Tf%nan%m 16.1.2007 counsel for the petitioner. Shri Raja Shanna, iearn-ed By fhis petition, the petit dated 6.92006 passed by II F Durg in MALQNO. 156/2006 W11 allowing The. application of majntenance has awarded a mspondmltS -— Wife and minor cl lildren. Learned counsel for the the petitioner has disputed the and 3 even Then the Court be fact is not disputed. order considering that the abovc‘ . I have heard learned c0111: This petition is directed \ maintenance passed by the 1e armed Fwnily Court under the exercise of its iurisdiction. Thi s Court after going through the oner has Challenged the order ’rincipal Judge, Family Court, erebv the learned Familv Court the respondents for inteIiJn sum of Rs. 1,800/- to the petitioner submits that though paternity of respondents No; 2 10w has passed the impugned rsel for the petitioner. against the order of interim x, V . my9$§3w 2mm, WW<W> O a§maH§#$ WWW WWW WWEWW éawm impugned order is of the con sidered opinion that there is no by the Court below in passing jurisdictional error committai the impugned ordcr which ca $ for mterference by this Court undsr Artick: 227 of Con Titution of India. Howeve1; consideiing the gn‘evance to decide the matter on merits preferably Wimin a period of six as expeditiously as possible months from the date of recei} )t of copy of this ordor, With the aforesaid oi )servation, the instant petition stands‘ disposed of. Dhirendra MN?” appropriate for the Court bel 1 Sdl— Judge P.T.O; f the petitioner, it would be