IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.328 of 2007 TUNTUN PRASAD Versus SUNITA DEVI With C.R. No.397 of 2007 TUNTUN PRASAD Versus SUNITA DEVI & ORS ----------- 2 19.8.2008 Heard Counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, if the petitioner has forced two litigations on the opposite party, one being the suit for restitution and the other being suit for divorce, whatever the merits of the both the cases may be, the order of the Court below awarding cost of litigation in both the cases at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- consolidated cannot be said to either excessive or illegal. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any material for interfering with that part of the impugned orders whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- by way of cost of litigation in both the cases. That would leave the matter with regard to the grant of Rs. 1,000/- per month as pendentelite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that there is no finding with regard to the income of the petitioner and therefore, a sum of Rs. 1,000/- which has been awarded 2 is excessive. In the opinion of this Court, when the petitioner himself has not produced either the applications which were filed by his wife for the maintenance or the stand taken by him in reply to such a claim of the income of the petitioner, he cannot be now allowed to raise this question before this Court. There being no merit in both the applications, the same are hereby dismissed. The Court below is directed to ensure that the amount of maintenance and cost of litigation as fixed by it be realized by the petitioner punctually within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)