IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (227.) No.7”; /201o WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PETITIONER / Smt. Maleshwari Sahu W/o Shiv DEFENDANT Das, aged about 19 years, at present R/o through Father Daman Lal Sahu. R/o Village Badghum, P.S. 8a Tahsil Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) RESPONDENT Shiv Das S/ o Shri Suklu Ram PLAINTIFF before the aged about 23 years, Caste Teli, family court R/o Village Bagdei, Post Police Station 85 Tahsil Dongarg'aon, District Rajnandgabn (C.G.) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (227) No. 7205 of 2010 ' PETITIONER Defendant Smt. Maleshwari Sahu VERSUS Shiv Das RESPONDENT Plaintiff (WRIT PETIT!ON UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA") (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Agarwal, J.) Present : Shri CR Sahu, Advocate for the petitioner. ‘ Shri Anup Majumdar, Advocate for respondent.- ‘2 ORAL ORDER (Passed on 07.07.2011) 1. instant petition fiied under Article 227 of Constitution of India caiis in question the iegaiity and propriety of order dated 30.11.2010, passed by the Family Court, Rajnandgaon, in Civil Suit No. 22— A/10, whereby and whereunder petitioner’s application filed under ‘ Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act‘) for grant of maintenance pendente lite and expenses ofthe proceedings has been dismissed. 2. Family Court ptsmissed: petitioner’s application observing: petitioner appears to be living in adultery, also being resident of Rajnandgaon itselfmay not incur litigation expenses and as such not entitled for grant of maintenance as well as litigation expenses. ' Shri CR Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit, the FamilyCourt, witho’ut making any summary enquiry and without‘per‘using the provisions‘in this regard, haspassed-«the impugned order dismissing petitioner’s appiication which is at ail not sustainable in iaw. On the other hand, Shri Anup Majumdar, learned counsei appearing for respondent supported the order impugned and submitted that in the facts and‘circumstances of the case the court beiow has rightiy dismissed petitioner’s appiication. i have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the order impugned. Before adverting to the facts of the case it would be appropriate to re-produce Sectiont24 of the Act which reads as under : 24. Maintenance pendente lite and expenses proceedings - Where in any proceeding under this-Act it appears to the court that either the wrfe or the husband as the case may be has no Independent Income sufftcxent for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding, and monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner's own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the court to be reasonable [Provrded that the application for the payment of the expenses of the proceeding and such monthly sum?durlng the proceedings, shall, as far as possible, be disposed of i within sixty days from the date of service of notice on the wife or the husband, as the case may be.]” The jurisdiction of the court under above provision for grant of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses is not controlled by the defences raised by the respondent in the substantive matter, It .i-r.,1 " is only circumscribed by the condition laid down in 'the Section itself as regards the sufficiency or otherwise ofthe income of the petitioner. 8. A bare perusai of order impugned wouid reveal the court below‘ Without making any enquiry with regard to sufficiency or otherwise of the income of the petitioner has dismissed the petitioner’s application by entering into the defences raised by the respondent which is unsustainable and uncalled for. 9. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, in the Considered opinion of this court, grounds have been made out for interference of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, orderimpugned dated 30.11.2010 is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Family Court, Rajnandgaon, to decide the petitioner’s application afresh in the light of observation made hereinabove. 10. Petition is accordingly allowed. No order asto costs. n l Sdl- N.K. Agrawal ‘ Judge