IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2199 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: April 01 , 2010 Rishi Verma ...... Petitioner Versus Neena Kumari ...... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.D.K.Jhangra, Advocate for the petitioner. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. This petition has been filed against an order directing litigation expenses of Rs. 3300/- to the wife. Learned counsel has very fairly stated that he has no objection to the quantum of litigation expenses. His plea is that the application of the respondent-wife contains allegations and the petitioner-husband was not given an opportunity to file reply thereto. Further states that in these circumstances the allegations of the respondent-wife may be held to be proved because the petitioner was not given an opportunity to file reply. It cannot be said that the allegations made by the respondent-wife have been admitted by the petitioner. With this clarification this petition is dismissed. Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE April 01 , 2010 sunita