© :c.<f>v0' IN THE fflGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH WRIT PETITION N0. ^ ^- G PETITIONER OF 2005 Girish Shanrn, aged about 37 years, S/o Late Kishori Lal Sharma, R/o - through Sharma Kiraya Bhandar, Station Road, TUda, Police Station - Neora, Thasil- Tilda,District-Raipur (C.G.) RESPONDENTS: /" ^ N\^s-<"^<*' >~'..-<^"..^ ^2^^- ^•.••.v^...••-•" ,^^%>'- ^^^^> ^^' ^ VERSUS Smt. Rajni Sharma, aged about 34 years (Mentally Retarded), W/o Girish Sharma, D/o Late Bhanvd Lal Sharma, Through Her Next Friend (^TK te), Smt. Bhagwati Devi Sharma (Mother), R/o- Marwadi Bhojnalaya, Kankalipara, Raipur, WMTPETITIONUNDERARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF CS[DIA XI-HC-78 WTOTgp^T^ ^wf <^|qio<l, U>-CTl<-i<I<?, Rlrtl^^ ^jj.^ M 0. $~\ '2.^/'Z-^o CW^200 3H^$T qal^((jc|i^|6|^) 3n^$TcprRrii<h Wff3n^?T^TN? \...-- ?^ITWr^Rd 3TT^^T 124-10^005: W.P.NO 5126 of 2005. Heard Shri Shivendu Pandya, The petitioner filed an applici the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on th< for more than 2 years, in the Cou(t Raipur. The respondent filed an Hindu Marriage Act for grant of maii application under Section 13 ofthe by its order dated 03-09-2005 direct^ 1500/- per month towards mainte( application under Section 13 of Hi< legalexpenses. Learned counsel for the no objection to the payment of expenses, but the petitioner wants the ground that the petitioner was n{ application. Since, the petitioner is not payment of Rs.1500/- per month towards (egal expenses, entertalnirlg by directing the petitioner to file Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage| liberty to file an application, if the order in accordance with law. cpl<4lo<nrf+1MoT:^'f^^cl <<Rl^l<< ^3rf^T3n^5T 1 learned counsel for the petitioner. ttion for divorce under Section 13 of ground of psychosis and desertion of Principal Judge, Family Court, lipplication under Section 24 6f the ^tenance during the pendency of the 1-findu Marriage Act. The Trial Court t^d the petitjonerto pay a sum of Rs. lance during the pendency of the ^du Marriage Act and Rs.1000/- as petitjoner submits that the petitioner has n|iaintenance pendentelite and legal |;o challenge the impugned order on )t allowed to file his replyto the said ;hallenging the impugned order for tfc»wards maintenance and Rs.1000/- this petition will serve no purpose 1-eply to the application filed under Act. However, the petitioner js at nece^sary, for amendment/modification of ^ y Q -"' ^ XI-HC-78 *ll*l«I^TT^ ^®ET;^TPTI?5?T, ^^tWT5, RlrtN1y1< ..w:..^..^. 3TT^9T traq? ((jc|i^4«g) Wt200 3TI^$T<CTR^ich HW 3?T^$T?F1Rra $JbV^ SrT^TWr:?rf^?T 3TT^$T -<2-- In view of the foregoing, the astocosts. Consequently, M.W.P. No. 2005 stand disposed of. rt>etition stands disposed of. No order 4148 of 2005 and I.A. No. 8993 of Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge <pi<<To<n'i +i2^c?T^' fe^Sl ^Ri^-ci^ ^3ri^T31T^9T