-^^•^•^'^•'--•v-"^"'^^' ^ c: BEWRR P. Art. 227 &<2%> Bhushan Prasad Sahu aged 25 years^ son of Shri •Amamath Sahu^ resident of village Sakri^ Po So A^' .,^° ^^ 'oc'^s^ <^^) (C.G. (TNoii-applicant) ^^ ^- ^'" ^ 1. <Smt. Reena Sahu aged 20 years, wife of Bhushan Prasad Sahu and daughter of Dauram Sahu, resident of village Ramtala, P. S. 2. Himanshu Sahu aged 1 year9 minor^ througfa the natural guardian^ the mother Smto Reena Sahu aged 20 years^ wife of Bhushan Prasad Sahu and daughter of Dauram Sahu^ resident of village Ramtala, P. S. Koni, tahsil and district Bilaspur (C.G.). (Applicants) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION ^^ ^&^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Writ Petition (2271 No. 6889/ 2010 Bhushan Prasad Sahu Versus Smt. Reena Sahu and another. Miss Sarina Khan, counsel forthe petitioner. WRIT PETITJON UNDER ARTJCLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORAL ORDER (13.12.2010) Challenge in this writ petition has been made to the order passed by the Family Court granting interim maintenance @ Rs.2,000/- per month to the respondents who are the wife and son of the petitioner. though the petitioner dispute the paternity of the chitd. (2) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent has given bjrth to a chikl during the period when the petitioner hact no access to the w'rfe for the precedjng nine months period, and whjte gMng birth to the respondent No.2, the respondent No.1 has entered name of the father of her son as 'Balalu' which would also demonstrate that the respondent No.2 is not his son ancl the respondents are not entitled for jnterim maintenance. (3) In the appljcation filed for grant of interim maintenance it was stated that the petitioner eams Rs.12-14000/- per month from hjs job as skitled Labourer (Nat Mistri) and has 3.50 acres of agricultural land belonging to his family at village Sakri. Though the petitioner has denied his income, however taking into consideration entirety ofthe facts and drcumstances the 1 trial Court. instead of awarding of Rs.4.000/- as prayed by respondents, has s^ granted maintenance @ Rs.2,000/- per month. 1.^. ^^ Jy ff .vs:y ''••^'fs-'U^'^^S^ ....^- (4) In the opinion of this Court, looking to the prevailing price index as also the fact that the respondent has no jndependent source of income, the order passed by the Family Court awarding jnterim maintenance at Rs.2,000/- per month does not calted for any interference in exerdse of power under Artide 227 of the Constitution of India. (5) The petjtioner has not disputed that he Js working as Skilled Labourer (Nal Mistri): he only disputes about the availability of work on seven days in a week. Thus. even if his income is taken at Rs.8 to 10.000/- per month and not as 12 to 14,000/- as stated by the respondent/wife, the amount of Rs.2.000/- per month awarded by the Family Court is not disproportionate or exorbitant. The issue regarding paternity of the child shall be gone into during final dedsion ofthe proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. (6) No case for jnterference with the order of interim maintenance granted by the Family Court is made out. The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of Indja fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- prashantKumarMishra Judge