IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3158 of 2011 Anil Kumar Jain Versus Rashmi Jain ----------- 2 8.7.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 3.1.2011 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna in Matrimonial Suit No.273 of 2009 whereby the learned court has allowed maintenance of Rs.6000/- per month to the respondent and her son and Rs.10,000/- by way of litigation cost. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plea of the respondent that the petitioner had a monthly income of about Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/- from the business of ready made garments is wrong as the garment shop has been sold long back. The further plea of the respondent that the petitioner is getting about Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- by way of monthly rental from one M/s Sanjay Traders, it is stated that the respondent herself occupied a portion of the house. It is not correct to state that the respondent has no earning. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that on the basis of the Bank account and different documents filed by the respondent, the learned court below has rightly granted maintenance of Rs.6000/- per month to the wife and her son besides litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-. It appears that while arriving at the decision the 2 KHAN learned court below did not take into account that respondent earns Rs.1500/- per month as per her own admission. In this view of the matter, the ad interim maintenance of Rs.6000/- per month is reduced to Rs.4500/- per month pending decision in the case. The litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- is not interfered with. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. (S.P.Singh,J)