IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1854 of 2008 NIRMAL PASWAN Versus SHUSHAMA DEVI ----------- 2 14/11/2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. While this Court would not find any error in the impugned order directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 600/-per month as maintenance and Rs. 1,500/- consolidated towards cost of litigation in terms of section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, it must notice the grievance of the petitioner that since the effort made by the court below for amicable settlement did not yield fruitful result on account of defiant attitude of the wife-opposite parties who does not want to live with the petitioner, she can not be held to be entitled for any such payment of maintenance pendent-elite. Such stand taken by the petitioner on a closer analysis of the relevant facts is however fit to be rejected. On one hand, the husband-petitioner had filed a suit for divorce making certain allegation against the wife-opposite party that she is not only illiterate but also in same 2 and as such the marriage cannot survive, but when on the other hand when the wife- opposite party had filed application for maintenance pendentilite after her appearance in the suit for divorce the petitioner has taken stand that he is ready to keep his wife. If the petitioner was so sanguine for an amicable settlement he should have first withdrawn the divorce suit. That having not been done, this Court does not find any merit in aforementioned stand of the petitioner. Be that as it may, the impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J. ) Abhay Kumar