IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.111 of 2007 ASHARFI PRASAD MAHTO @ ASHARFI Versus SMT.KANTI DEVI ----------- 2 14/8/2008 No one appears for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, the finding arrived at by the court below that the petitioner had income of Rs. 15,000/- per month as stated by him in his show cause reply being unassailable the quantum of Rs. 2,500/- per month by way of interim maintenance or consolidated cost of litigation of Rs. 5,000/- in exercise of power under section 24 of the Hindu Marriages Act, cannot be said to be vitiated either on fact or on law. Let it be noted that this attitude of the petitioner of not being represented at the crucial juncture either before this Court or before the court below has been, as a matter of fact, is has been developed by him both way of device and practice and therefore the petitioner in future would not be allowed to contend that he was not heard by this Court or the court below in respect of the impugned order. At the same time this Court would direct the court below to compel the petitioner to deposit the arrears and current amount which has been directed to be paid by him under the impugned order, within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J. ) Abhay Kumar