IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.232 of 2008 JAI PRAKASH @ JAI PRAKASH GUPTA Versus RANJANA DEVI @ GURIYA ----------- 3 11.09.2008 I.A. No. 879 of 2008 For the reasons mentioned in this application, the delay in filing the Civil Revision application No. 232 of 2008 is hereby condoned . C.R.No.232 of 2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, the sum of Rs. 2000/- , one thousand for each for the wife and the minor child by way of maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act or a consolidated cost of litigation for Rs. 10,000/- in all, cannot be said to be either illegal or excessive specially when the marriage is admitted and the finding recorded by the Court below that the petitioner is having a jewellery shop is also not said to be an error of record. Counsel for the petitioner, however, would contend that the cost of litigation of Rs. 10,000/- is on higher side. While this Court would find that the divorce case came to be filed in the year, 2003, the application for maintenance pendente lite was filed on 11.7.2007 and in that view of the matter, the Court below should - 2 - reconsider only this aspect and if the opposite party, wife had entered appearance and was contesting the litigation only with effect from 2007, then this amount should be proportionally reduced but on the other hand if it is found that the wife is contesting litigation from 2003 onwards then this amount will not be disturbed/modified. With the aforementioned observations and directions this Civil Revision application is dismissed. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)