IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR ’ CHHATTISGARH WritPetition(Art.227)No. “£33 /200'9 (3.3.) PETITIONER Laxmichand Kamde, Applicant S/o Shn‘ Devkaran Kamde, Aged about 40 Years (wrongly mentioned of order sheet as ‘35 years) Resideht 0f Kashiram Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS VaMAQ A Smt. Yogitatai, W/o LaXmichand Non-Applicant Kamde, Aged About 36 Years (wrongly mentioned of order sheet as 32 years) C/o Smt. Vimaltai, Bhim Nagar, Radhakrishna Ward, Gondiya (M.H.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICAL'227 ‘OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, FOR THE ISSUANCE OF DIRECTION IS} OR ORDER (SI. RESPONDENT / HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT B§LASPUR W.P. (227) No. 71 33 of 2009 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Agarwal, J.) ‘ Present : ShriPrakash Tiwari, Advocate for petitioner. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 4"" day of December, 2009) Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 03.11.2009 (Annexure P/1), passed by the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (CG), in case No. 105-A/05, whereby and whereunder the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 144 read with Section 151 of CPC has been dismissed, the petitioner has filed the instant petition. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner preferred a suit under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for grant of divorce. During pendency of the suit, interim maintenance was directed to be paid to the respondent. Earlier the case was proceeded exparte and exparte decree was passed in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC flied by the respondent was allowed and exparte decree was set aside and the matter is pending consideration. By way of application filed by the petitioner under Section 144 read with Section 151 of CPC, the only submission made by the petitioner before the trial court was that since the decree was in force between the period commencing from 13.10.2006 till 24.07.2008, and / / Petitioner Laxmichand Kamde Versus Respondent Smt. Yogitatai Kamde Sahu' therefore, no maintenance can be allowed to the respondent for that period as there was no Husband and Wife relationship between them in that period. The said application was rejected by the trial court. Hence this petition. Shri Prakash Tlwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the respondent is not entitled for maintenance amount for the period from 13102006 to 24.07.2008, and therefore, the order to that extent is bad in law and deserves to be set aside. Having heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner and having perused the order impugned, l do not find any merit in the petition. When the decree is set aside, it is deemed to be set aside from the date of passing of the said decree and therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent is not entitled for the interim maintenance for that penod. ln view of the above, l do not find any merit in the petition so as to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of Constitution of lndia. lt ls well settled principle of law that this Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia. 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 large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. 8. The petition has no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed in i“, llmine. Sd/— N.K. Agrawal Judge