IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21328 of 2011 Ajeet Kumar Gupta Versus Manisha Devi & Anr ---------------------------------- 03. 12.12.2011 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent no.1 is not ready to reside with the petitioner in spite of the repeated calls made by the petitioner and, therefore, he had filed the application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal right and in the said matrimonial case, the respondent appeared and filed application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the learned Court below illegally by the impugned order directed the petitioner to pay Rs.2,000 per month as maintenance to the respondent no.1 and Rs.1,000 per month to her minor son. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the respondent has instituted Simari P.S. Case No.21 of 2008 against the husband alleging that the respondent was subjected to cruelty and badly assaulted for non-payment of dowry demanded by the petitioner. So far quantum of maintenance is concerned, it appears that the learned Court below recorded the evidence and after considering the evidences available on record directed the petitioner to pay litigation cost of Rs.5,000 lump sum and Rs.2,000 to the respondent 2 no.1 and Rs.1,000 to the minor son. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order. In my opinion, in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction the impugned order cannot be interfere with. Thus, this writ application is dismissed. Saurabh (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)