IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.48 of 2009 BABLU RAJAK SON OF SRI CANDRADEO RAJAK R/O VILLAGE – TELOUNCH, P.O. – FARREH P.S. – CHOUTHAM, DISTRICT – KHAGARIA -----PETITIONER. Versus VEENA BHARTI @ VINA BHARTI DAUGHTER OF DEVIDAYAL RAJAK RESIDENT OF PURANI BAJAR, WARD NO. 4, COLLEGE CHOWK P.S. AND DISTRICT – MADHEPURA. ----- OPPOSITE PARTY. ----------- For the petitioner - Mr. Diwakar Prasad, Singh, Adv. For the opposite party - None. -------- 5. 19/2/2009 Heard Mr. Diwakar Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 23.9.2008 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Saharsa in Divorce Case No. 23 of 2007 whereby the petition filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the opposite party-wife has been allowed. The opposite party filed a petition under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act stating therein that she has no means for livelihood and she requires Rs. 3,000/- per month to meet her expenses. Having considered the rival submissions, the court below has allowed the prayer in part and in place of Rs. 3,000/- per month as demanded by the wife, it has allowed Rs. 800/- per month to meet the expenses of suit and other ancillary works from the date of petition filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. - 2 - Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any illegality in the impugned order. In view of the above, I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 23.9.2008 warranting interference of this Court in its discretionary Civil Revisional jurisdiction. As a result, this Civil Revision application is dismissed. S.Ali (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)