Y^^- ?^:'^^^ y<E'!-" .,'^.y -••. "i/y s^ff*-' ft^"-'-' BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BiLASPUR ( CHHATTISGARH ) WRITPETITIONi&)NO. Z-1,'5 ^~" / 26^ff^ SINGLS •y'c\o PETITIONER s«v^ ^^.Sg~'fU~\ ^'•!^^-?"^li Jj ^ Manish Chandraker, aged about 32 y'ears, Son Rajkumar chandraker R/o kasaredih, Durg District Durg (C.G) RESPONDENTS ^-W's&'p'1'"' ?3)' VERSUS Ritu Chandraker aged 33 years D/o Shatrughan Chandraker R/o ViNage Bemcha Ditsrict mahasamund (C.G WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE2270F THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. ^. Av ^v: i'if3' <1 mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra PETITIONER Writ Petition (227) No. 2137/2010 Manish Chandraker RESPONDENT Versus Ritu Chandraker Appearance: Shri Anurag Jha, counsel for the petitioner. WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORAL ORDER (4.05.2010) Heard. (2) Challenge in this writ petition under arricle 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order passed by the leamed Family Court allowing the application preferred by the respondent/wife under section 24 ofthe Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 hereinafter referred as Act, 1955 for grant of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. (3) The proceedings under section 12 of the Act, 1955 has been initiated at the instaace of petitioner, wherein the respondent/wife moved the subject application on the pleadings inter-alia that she is unemployed and has no independent source of income, whereas the petitioner/husband operates a health centre eaming Rs.20,000/- per month Ifaere from and in addition, he has about 12 acres of agricultural land and is also engaged in the diary business in the Durg town, therefore the petitioner/husband should be directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses and Rs.5000/- maintenance pendente lite. The Trial Court has allowed Rs.6000/- as litigation expenses and Rs.1000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite. .^^•1L^f^~^^ ^"^'^y^- ^^f.: "^-^. •S ~^SSS c '"s® i;^,, ¥ ^ (4) Leamed counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the respondent/wife is an educated lady and in the directory published by the Chhattisgarii Chandraker Mahila Samaj, Raipur in theyear 2007, her biodata reflects that she is employed as teacher. Therefore, the burden to prove that she is not employed was on the wife, which she has failed to discharge, therefore, the order deserves to be set aside. (5) Having pemsed the impugned order and farther giving anxious consideration to the argument raised by the petitioner, this Court is not impressed with the argument. The directory published by the Chandraker Mahila Samaj was ofthe year 2007, in the said directory also, it is not mentioned as to in which educational institution she is employed nor her moathly income has been mentioned. It is not the case ofthe petitioner that while she remained with the petitioner after marriage, she continued to be employed and was eaming handsomely during all those period. (6) Be that as it may, the leamed Family Court has recorded a categorical finding at this stage ofthe proceeding, that the respondent has no independent source ofincome. (7) Further, the amount ofRs.1000/-, though said to be on higher side by the petitioner, does not appear to be exeessive looking to the consumer price index in vogue. (8) In the opinion ofthe Court, there is no legal infirmity or error ofjurisdiction in the impugned order passed by the Family Court. (9) The instant petition fails and hereby dismissed. (10) Leamed counsel for the petitioner prays that the respondent may delay the proceeding. The apprehension raised by the counsel is without any foundation. However, it is expected ofthe Trial Court to dispose ofthe matter as early as possible. Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge