C3i '^»£^ ,^., •-•,e'!e- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (2271 N0.2372 OF 2008 PETmONERS/ Non-Applicants RESPONDENTS/ Applicants 1. Matikram, S/o Shri Anand Lal Sahu, aged about 75 years. 2. Sitaram, S/o Shri Anand Lal Sahu, aged about 45 years. Both resident" of behind canal Shivchowk, Dundera, Post Dundera, Tah. & Dist. Durg (CG). Versus 1. Smt. Laxmi, W/o Shri Narad Sahu, aged about 30 years. 2. Monish Kumar, S/o Shri Narad Sahu, aged about 9 years (minor) 3. Ku. Chetna, D/o Shri Narad Sahu, aged about 7 years (minor) Respondents No.2 & 3 are through the natural guardian Smt. Laxmi, W/o Shri Narad Sahu, aged about 30 years. All resident of through Shri Patiram Sahu, village & Post Gheet, Tahsil and Distrtet Durg(CG). (Writ petition under Article 227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri R.S. Patet.counsel for the petitioners. Shri H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Rinki Tamrakar, Advocate for the respondents. ORALORDER (Passed on this 9th day of January, 2009) The petitioner No.1, who happens to be the father of Narad Sahu (husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondents No. 2 & 3) and the petitioner No.2 happens to be the elder brother of Narad Sahu, have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of tndia against the order dated 5-3-2008 (Annexure-P/1) passed bythe Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, in M.J.C. No.28/2007 (Smt. Laxmi & Others vs. Matikram & Another), whereby the learned Additional Principat Judge has granted interim t- ^ .i<yti .!i';:,tf':"a^. ''*\ '"^'^.•^'^^ % 'W.&lw3^ ' ^\ 'r^^i-ss^ .,^ maintenance to the respondent No.1 at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month and at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month to each of the respondents No.2 & 3. 2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the question involved in this petition is asto whether the respondents are entitled to maintenance from the share of Narad Sahu or from the joint family property of Narad Sahu. rf 3) So far as the law is concerned, the same may be agitated before the Court betow wherein the case is pending consideration, at the time of hearing. In view of the fact that admittedty the respondents have been ignored on account ofthefact the husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondents No.2 & 3 has been missing for the last two years, therefore, it became necessary to grant some interim maintenance to wife and children of Narad Sahu. 4) In view of the foregoing, ! do not find any irregutarity, jurisdfctional error or illegality in the impugned order. The legal question may'be raised by the petitioners before the pending suit at appropriate stage. Thus, the order impugned is unexceptionable, just and proper and does not warrant any interference. 5) This Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should refrain itself from interfering with the order passed by the Court below, except in such cases where perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ iarge on the face ofthe record, which is not in the present case. 6) In view of the foregoing, the petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingty dismissed. 7) Consequently, I.A.No.1 stands disposed of. Gowri ^^