Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Jagdish Sharma v. The Addl. District Judge & Others - WRIT - C No. 64082 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 4254 (17 October 2005)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner-husband aggrieved by an order passed by the trial Court dated 14th December, 2004, whereby the trial Court on an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the respondent-wife has granted interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month from the date of filing the application i.e. 21st July, 2004 and Rs. 2,500/- towards the expenses for litigation, approached the revisional Court by means of revision and the revisional Court dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner and affirmed the findings arrived at by the trial Court.

Both the Courts below have recorded findings, which according to learned counsel for the petitioner, suffer from the error of law, much less manifest error of law to the effect that the respondent-wife is in employment.  I have gone through the pleadings of the parties as well as the order passed by the Courts below.  The petitioner has stated only this much that the respondent-wife is in service without specifying as to where she is serving.  In my opinion, the observation of the trial Court against the petitioner and the findings affirmed  by the  revisional Court regarding income of the respondent-wife do not suffer from any error, much less manifest error of law, which may warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 226 of the Constitution of India.  No other point has been argued by leaned counsel for the petitioner.

In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition is dismissed.  However, the parties shall bear their own costs.

Dated: 17.10.2005.



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.