-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 877 of 2023 Kumar Chiranjeev Jha, S/o Sri Mundrika Jha, Age 36 years, R/o-D.T.-1031, Dam Side, Dhurwa, P.S. & P.O.- Dhurwa, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand). ..... … Petitioner Versus Kum Kum Shiva, W/o-Kumar Chiranjeev Jha, D/o- Dr. Sri Gopal Jha, R/o-Village-Rampur, P.O. & P.S.- Mananpur, District-Lakhisarai, (Bihar). ..... … Respondent -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Advocate. : Mr. Md. Hatim, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Ankur Anand, Advocate. ------ 06/ 15.01.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the sole-respondent. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 20.05.2023, passed in Original Suit No. 170 of 2022, whereby, the petition filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the sole-respondent has been allowed and Rs. 8,000/- per month is directed to be paid to the sole respondent by the petitioner, by way of ad-interim maintenance by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the income of the petitioner has not been considered and higher amount of Rs. 8,000/- per month has been directed to be paid to the sole respondent as an interim-maintenance. He submits that the interim maintenance amount is on the higher side, as such, the impugned order may kindly be set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent submits that only Rs. 8,000/- per month has been directed to be paid by way of ad-interim maintenance, as the petitioner is having a poultry farm business and he is earning Rs. 50000/- per month. 5. From the impugned order, it appears that only by way of ad- interim maintenance Rs. 8,000/- has been directed to be paid to the wife by the husband and it is well settled that the husband is bound to maintain his wife and further by the impugned order, the learned -2- court has not come to the final conclusion on the assets and liabilities and further the standard of living of both the sides have not been decided as yet and that can be decided in the final argument of the maintenance. As such, the grounds taken by the petitioner with regard to maintenance are kept open to be decided in the final argument. 6. In view of the above, it appears that there is no illegality in the impugned order, as such, this petition is dismissed. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Amitesh/-