Hemant Gagan Singh vs Anima Maitri Singh on 24 October, 2011

Patna High Court – Orders
Hemant Gagan Singh vs Anima Maitri Singh on 24 October, 2011
                     Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18796 of 2011
                                    Hemant Gagan Singh
                                     Anima Maitri Singh

02. 24.10.2011. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

The husband-petitioner has filed this

application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

for setting aside the order dated 05.07.2011 passed by

Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna in

Matrimonial Case No.657 of 2008 whereby the learned

Court below allowed the application filed by the wife-

respondent under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act

and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.4000/- per month

as maintenance and Rs.1,000/- per month to her son

from the date of filing of the application, i.e. from

16.06.2009 and also directed to pay a lumsum of

Rs.15,000/- as litigation cost.

The learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that 125 Cr.P.C. proceeding is also pending

and any order in this Matrimonial suit will prejudice the

parties in the proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

The learned counsel further submitted that the

petitioner is dependent on his parents and has no

separate source of income. The school which was

running earlier by the wife has been closed now. The

learned Court below without taking evidence directed

the petitioner to pay interim maintenance and cost of


From perusal of the impugned order, it appears

that the income tax return and other documents were

produced before the Court below. According to the

learned Court below from the documents available on

record goes to show that petitioner has transferred

some land situated at Hazaribagh and the petitioners

has got income and the income tax return till 2007-08

has also been filed. The petitioner also admitted that

he has got Rs.6000/- to Rs.8000/- income per month

whereas the case of the wife is that her husband earns

Rs.1 lakh per month.

Considering the income tax return filed in the

Court below, the learned Court below held that the

petitioner has monthly income of Rs.15,000/- and,

therefore, on the basis of that the impugned order has

been passed. Now, therefore, in supervisory

jurisdiction, this Court cannot substitute its own finding

after considering the documentary evidence which have

been considered by the Court below. It is well settled

that in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, this Court

cannot turn itself to an appellate Court.

In view of the above facts and circumstances

of the case, I find no jurisdictional error in the

impugned order. Accordingly, this application is


Sanjeev/-                             (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *