IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14036 of 2011 Ashok Kumar Sinha Versus Anupma @ Anmel ---------------------------------- 02. 29.08.2011 Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to make correction in the provision of law by inserting Article 227 and deleting Article 226. Permission is accorded. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the order dated 24.12.2010 passed in Matrimonial Case No. 370 of 2008 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna, whereby the learned court-below directed the petitioner to pay Rs.1100/- per month as maintenance and Rs.2500/- lump sum on account of cost of litigation. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in fact the respondent is also working and is getting Rs.4,000/- per month. According to the learned counsel, the Matrimonial Case has been filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal life and in spite of conciliation the respondent is not ready to live with the petitioner and therefore she has no ground to refuse to stay with the petitioner and demand maintenance. The learned counsel further submits that the earning of the petitioner is Rs.2,000/- per month only and he has to maintain his old ailing widow mother and he is not 2 capable to give Rs.11,00/- per month to the respondent. The learned counsel further submits that the learned court-below has presumed income of the petitioner of Rs.3500/- per month. From perusal of the impugned order it appears that the specific case of the respondent is that the husband of the respondent is working in a shop and is getting Rs.5,000/- per month. However, the petitioner only admitted that he is getting Rs.2,000/- per month. From perusal of the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act it appears that there is specific averment made by the wife that she has got no source of livelihood. The learned court-below considering the minimum wages fixed by the government presumed the income of the petitioner to the tune of Rs.3,000/- to 3500/- per month. In view of the above discussion, in my opinion the learned court-below has taken a view regarding the quantum of maintenance to be granted under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Admittedly, the husband has got income and learned court-below found that there is nothing on record in support of the fact that the respondent is also earning. In such view of the matter, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by re-appreciating the materials, this Court has no authority to take another view regarding quantum which is also possible. Accordingly, I find no merit in this writ application and thus it is dismissed. Mkr. (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)