IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20895 of 2011 Manoj Mahato Versus Lakhpato Devi ---------------------------------- 02. 30.11.2011. The husband is the petitioner in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has filed this application for setting aside the order dated 17.03.2011 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Siwan in divorce case No.154 of 2009 whereby the learned Court below allowed the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the wife-respondent and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.1100/- as monthly maintenance amount to the respondents from the date of the order, i.e., 17.03.2011. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is labour but the learned Court below did not consider this fact and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.1100/- per month which the petitioner is unable to pay because the petitioner being the labour do not get regular work. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Court below considered the rate of daily wage and then also considered that he must be working 25 days per month and then fixed the rate at Rs.1100/-. - 2 - In 2004 (4) P.L.J.R. 533 Veena KUmari Vs. Sri Kant @ Sanjay, this Court has held that in an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, if the husband is avoiding to declare his income, the assertion of the wife about the income of the husband is to be accepted. In another case, Division Bench of this Court reported in 2003 (4) P.L.J.R. 523, it has been held that in supervisory jurisdiction, the High Court cannot make panchayati regarding the quantum of the maintenance. Moreover, in the case of Shalnii Shyam shetty Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil reported in 2010 (8) Supreme Court cases 329, the Apex Court has held that in private dispute, Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not apply. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order. As such, this writ application is dismissed. Sanjeev/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)