IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18796 of 2011
Hemant Gagan Singh
Versus
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
-2-
litigation.
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
dismissed.
Sanjeev/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)
-3-
