IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2061 of 2008 RAKESH RANJAN MISHRA Versus GEETA DEVI @ GEETA PANDEY ----------- 2. 10.12.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Shukla while assailing the impugned order would submit that out of frustration the husband petitioner before the court has taken a stand that he is no longer interested in keeping relation with his wife and has preferred to have a divorce. On a second thought the petitioner as a matter of fact is said to have realized that he would like to restore their conjugal relationship with his wife and that the whole dispute would, therefore, come to an end. Mr. Shukla, accordingly, would submit that the order of the court directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 2500/- by way of cost of litigation for each date of appearance of the wife is both absurd and illegal. This Court has examined the materials on record and would find that there is no denial that the opposite party is living in reveling. The opposite party being a lady has to travel with someone and 2 Surendra/ if she has claimed cost for such travelling for her father, that again cannot be said to be illegal in any manner. Realizing cost of traveling of two persons from Raurkela to Motihari as also expenses that has to be incurred on the day, this Court would not find any reason to interfere with a sum of Rs. 2500/- per effective appearance of the opposite party. In that view of the matter, this Court would direct the petitioner to pay the entire amount payable under the impugned order within a period of one month from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. After such amount is paid by the petitioner, the court below will once again test the veracity of the stand taken by the counsel for the petitioner before this Court and in case both the parties agree to now resolve their differences it would pass necessary orders to that effect. With the aforementioned observation, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) 3