CR No. 1304 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No. 1304 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 17.5.2011. Tilak Raj .......Petitioner Vs. Shashi Bala ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Rahul Vats, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the respondent. ..... SABINA, J. Petitioner has filed the petition under Section 13- B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of marriage between the parties by way of a decree of divorce. Respondent moved an application under Section 24 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred as Act) seeking grant of maintenance to her and her minor son Ravi. Vide the impugned order dated 6.12.2010, the said application was disposed of and ` 1500/- per month were allowed to the child as maintenance and the wife was allowed ` 11,000/- towards litigation expenses. Hence, the present petition by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial court had erred in allowing the litigation expenses to the CR No. 1304 of 2011 (O&M) -2- respondent as she had withdrawn the application under Section 24 of the Act. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that the litigation expenses were liable to be allowed to the respondent to enable her to pursue the litigation. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be allowed. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the award of ` 11,000/- to the respondent towards litigation expenses. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner will continue to pay ` 1500/- per month towards maintenance to his child. The application under Section 24 of the Act, filed by the respondent, was dismissed as withdrawn, in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent. Since, the application under Section 24 of the Act had been ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn, the learned Additional District Judge erred in awarding ` 11,000/- to the respondent towards litigation expenses. The application under Section 24 of the Act could not be allowed partly once it had been ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn. In these circumstances, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 6.12.2010, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, is set aside to the extent whereby ` 11,000/- were allowed to the respondent towards litigation expenses. (SABINA) JUDGE May 17, 2011 Gurpreet