104; BEFORE THE HDN'BLE MGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT HLA$UR(CG WoPaNo. o o QLL$73 ' t o c 2003 / Smt. S. R. Shikharani w/o P.Hari Kuuar f Through shri V.R.c. P111a1, R/O W.NO.SM A-ZL Padum Nagar. Bhilai-E, Post Bh11a1-3, mah. & matt. DURG (c.G.). Petiti oner P. Hari Kunar s/O P.M.P. Kain‘al x§k aged 36 years, jgh / Occupation : Train Driver, Z \ré’h? $2 Panchsheel R/o B/z, street Housing No.7A, Saciety, Sector (A) i he: g? Post-Borsi. Tahsil and Distt.wRG (c.G. ). §"Qo Q’K \ Writ Petition U/Articles 226/ 2 or the Constitution ReSPODdent . ‘x‘ n € sf; or India - ) ' s Wm . w.w‘:?‘..NO.* (L95? mm ‘W 2003 Shri Ajay Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioner. Heard. By this writ petition filed constitution of India petitioner k 18.6.2003 passed by 5th Addl. S Suit No.247A/O3 filed under sec Act. Petitioner’s case is that n petition No.247A/2003 against the Hindu Marriage Act and petition, the petitioner moved \ Hindu Marriage Act praying 1'01 the petitioner is able to defend ‘ the divorce petition and to f1 petition and in that applicatio claimed Rs.10,000/- towards e and Rs.5000/— per month for petitioner has alSo moved an C.P.C. on 18.6.2003 requesting the learned Court to allow the application u/s 24 of the Hindu“ Marriage Act while directing the respondent to produce the the Train Driver, but the Court passed the impugned }ordi// under Article 226/227 of the .as challenged the order dated essions Judge, Durg, in Civil tion 13 of the Hindu Marriage =spondent has filed a divorce f her seeking divorce u/s 13 of during the pendency of the an application u/s 24 of the interim maintenance so that herself in the proceedings of 1e written statement of the n u/s 24 the petitioner has xpenses for legal proceedings interim maintenance. ,The application u/s 151 of the pay slip as he is working as /4 /V We: \ Wmmafa‘a WW§WW %‘ 31Wm ($92003 é‘%’w%kwmma ,w nan XI—HC-22 .@ Wm fhat the petitioner é'hgulé gm 111:3 a written statement and thereafter the application u/s 24 will be considered. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said f1 7n n H trder of the Subordinate Court is contrary to the provisions of §ection 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the postponement >f the order u/ s 24 of the Hindu arriage Act till the filing of he written statement is unjust d unreasonable, therefore urt be directed to decide th application tiled by the of the petitioner uf s Q4 of i; not in a position to file the I have perused the order o the trial Court The trial circumstances of the case th petitioner was directed to o e wmwymwgw 200; f§ “1%“ a“ ' §mm§% ' m WQTW _‘"L’ ‘ mm 1%wm a: afar am X1;Hc722» Wm petitioner is receiving R5150! maintenance, that is Why the § order that the petitioner should first file the written statement and then the application u/ s 24- WIH be decided. The petitioner instead of filing written statement has filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the said order of the subordinate Court. @nder Article 227 of the Cons )/~ p€r month as interim ubordinate Court passed an t' entitled to exercise the supervise in exercise of supervisory jur convert itself into a ootu‘t o appreciation or evaluation of e drawing inferences of mere form a subordinate court has assume not have or has,failed to exerci or the jurisdiction though avail Court in a manner not permitte or grave injustice has resulted, exercise its supervisory jurisdict A perusal of the impugn tion of India this Court is jurisdiction and this Court sdiction is not entitled to appeal or indulge in re— ‘dence or correct errors in technical character. Where a jurisdiction which it does a jurisdiction which it has ble is being exercised by the by law and failure oi‘justice he High Court may step into 011. d order reveals that none of the above conditions are satisiie in the matter. Moreover, the u Wmagrgmzjttfi w 2093 311%:1 $1 W anti Wen?! aria swarm :3 a minimW ft feQiW a; aii‘am 311w '24 of the Hindu Marriage Act will be decided. A perusal of the iinpugned order dated 18.6.2003 clearly goes to show that the XI—HC-22 3W m . ...&.~>..:I?.:.i§39.‘.f%€€§§ WW gi 200$ petitinner is almady getting a maintenance albwance of RS.1500/~ pm. Therefore it cannot be said that the petitioner is not in a positicn to :ile the written Statement. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and matexial on record, I am of the opinion that it is not a tit case Where this court should interfere in the impugned order of the trial Court. Writ petition is d‘ missed. Accordingly, ~ M.W.P.Not2442/03 and LANO. 76/03 also stand disposed of. r Sd/— L.C.BHADOO Judge / , g e