Pradeep Kumar Singh @ Pradeep Kumar v. Khushboo Kumari

Patna High Court CWJC No.3689 of 2013 (4) dt.15-02-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3689 of 2013 ====================================================== Pradeep Kumar Singh @ Pradeep Kumar S/O Late Suresh Singh Resident Of Village - Chaidha Tola, P.S. Mansi, Dist. Khagaria .... .... Petitioner.

Versus

Khushboo Kumari W/O Pradeep Kumar Singh And D/O Ramdeo Mahton Resident Of Village - Sundarpur, P.S. Dharhara, Dist. - Munger .... .... Respondent.

====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Sinha For the Respondent/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH ORAL JUDGMENT 15-02-2016 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. No body has appeared on behalf of the respondent even after the service of notice.

By the impugned order the learned court below has allowed a sum of Rs.1500/- per month by way of maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act to the respondent with further direction for payment of the conveyance cost and litigation cost on per date basis.

The present petitioner has filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. During the pendency of the proceeding the respondent-wife filed the petition under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act praying for maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month as

Patna High Court CWJC No.3689 of 2013 (4) dt.15-02-2016 litigation cost and Rs.10,000/- as interim maintenance. By the impugned order the learned court below has allowed Rs.1500/- per month as interim maintenance cost and also Rs.100/- by way of conveyance cost and Rs.50/- as lawyer's fee and Rs.50/- as miscellaneous litigation cost on per date basis. The learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner is only a daily wage earner and has no means to pay the aforesaid amount. It has, however, been also stated that the petitioner has not paid the amount as directed by the learned court below by its order dated 18.08.2012 up-till-now i.e. 15.02.2016. Considering the submissions and the materials on record as well as the impugned order, this Court does not find that the learned court below has committed illegality or perversity in passing the impugned order.

The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. (V. Nath, J) Nitesh/- U