IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Writ Petition No. 1025 of 2009 (M/S) Sunil Verma …………Petitioner Versus Smt. Krishana & others ……….Respondents. Mr. Sanjeev Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Dated: November 27, 2009 Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. (By the Court) Heard Sri Sanjeev Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order granting interim maintenance in favour of wife/respondent no.1 and in favour of respondent no.2 & 3 daughter & son of the petitioner. Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hardwar directed the petitioner to pay Rs.1000/- each in favour of wife, daughter and son, total amounting of Rs.3000/- per month. Scope of Article 226/227 of Constitution of India is limited. Order put under challenge under article 226/227 of the Constitution of India can be quashed if this Court finds that Subordinate Court has committed manifest error of law or jurisdictional error. Admittedly, Principal Judge, Family Court, Hardwar has jurisdiction to grant interim maintenance. While granting interim maintenance, learned Court below committed no jurisdictional error. Learned Counsel for the petitioner could not point out any manifest error of law in the impugned order. I have perused the record. I find that interim maintenance of Rs.1000/- each in favour of wife, son and daughter can not be said on the higher side. No interference is called for. Petition is dismissed summarily. (Alok Singh, J.) 27.11.2009 JKJ