HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon’ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishm VVrit Petition (227) No. 614/2010 PETITIONER : ‘ Tushar Ranka r Versus Smt. Anjali Ranka RESPONDENT Appearance: Shri Goutam Bhaduri and Shri S.K. Tiwari, counsel for the respondent. Shri Kshitiz Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. VVRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORAL ORDER (08,02,2011) Petitioner has called in question the order passed by the Family Court, Raipur on 12/01/2010 allowing the respondent’s application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 and granting maintenance pendente lite @ Rs.7000/— per month. (2) The proceedings for grant of divorce has been initiated by the petitioner in the Family Court, Raipur sometimes in the month of March 2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on his application a decree under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was passed by the 5m Additional District Judge, Raipur on 7m March, 2006 in Civil Suit No.54—A/2005 and even otherwise the respondent/wife has sufficient means for maintaining herself as she has her own share in the extensive family properties and businesses A’h/and is already living a lavish life. Details ofthe properties have been ’ / f Lr mentiohed in the reply flled by the petitioner before the Family i Court. (3) v Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the petitioner has not submitted any proof for the allegation that respondent is having sufficient means to maintain herself. (4) On perusal of the impugned order passed by the Family Court it would appear that the court below has considered all the aspects of the matter more particularly the fact that the respondent is not keeping good health and is under treatment. It is also observed that the document regarding ownership of Anjali Hotel contains name of Smt. Bharti Devi and not that of respondent and that for remaining property mentioned by the petitioner/husband no proof has been submitted. (5) From the contents of the application frled by the respondent under Section 24 of Act, 1955 and its reply by the petitioner it would appear that the parties to the litigation are maintaining decent status, therefore keeping in View the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is n’ot inclined to interfere with the quantum of interim maintenance fixed by the Family Court. (6) From the contents of the plaint, it would appear that initially proceeding under Section 9 ofthe Hindu Marriage Act was instituted some time in the year 2006 and since thereafter litigation is going on, \yt erefore this Court deems it proper to direct the Trial Court to dispose of the present suit as early as possible and preferably within a @ pen'od of four months from the date of preSentation of certified copy ofthis order. (7) With this direction, the instant petition filed under Aiti’cle 227 of the Constitution of India fails and is hereby dismissed. Sdl- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge \J