IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22251 of 2011 Sangita Pandey Versus Sudhir Kumar Pathak ---------------------------------- 03. 20.12.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the wife against the order dated 08.03.2010 whereby the learned Court of Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna in matrimonial case No.613 of 2008 directed the respondent to pay Rs.1200/- per month as maintenance to the petitioner from the date of the order and also against the order dated 17.08.2011 passed by the same Court whereby the Court below reviewed the order dated 08.03.2010 and the Court below has held that the amount of Rs.1000/- which was directed to be paid by the respondent to the petitioner in criminal Misc. bail application shall merge in the order passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Court below could not have merged the amount which was directed to be paid to the petitioner while deciding bail application and moreover while passing the order for grant of maintenance, the Court below could not have directed to pay the interim maintenance from the date of the order. The Court below should have passed the order directing the respondent to pay from the date of the application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. - 2 - Admittedly, in criminal Misc. No.10303 of 2006, the respondent was directed to pay Rs.1000/- per month in favour of the petitioner by terms of order dated 21.12.2006. It is not the case that in violation of the said order, the respondent was not paying the said amount to the petitioner. The petitioner filed application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 29.05.2007. However, while passing this order under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Court below directed the respondent to pay Rs.1200/- as maintenance to the petitioner which has subsequently been reviewed by the order dated 17.08.2011 and directed that the Rs.1000/- which was being paid by the respondent to the petitioner shall merge in the order dated 08.03.2010. The learned Court below also considered the fact that in addition to this Rs.1200/-, the petitioner is also getting Rs.800/- as rent in domestic violence case and, therefore, now total amount the respondent is paying is Rs.2000/- per month. Rs.1000/- was being paid by the respondent to the petitioner even prior to her filing application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the order passed by the Court below suffers from any jurisdictional error and, therefore, the impugned order cannot be interfered with in supervisory jurisdiction. Therefore, this application is dismissed. Sanjeev/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)