IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 226 of 2011 with Delay Condonation Apln No. 6193 of 2011 Stay Application No. 6194 of 2011 Manoj Kumar Chauhan S/o Shri Udai Singh Chauhan R/o Village Noorpur, Pajanhedi, P.S. Kankhal, District Hardwar ………………..Appellant Versus Smt Sarvesh W/o Manoj Kumar D/o Shri Jahar Singh R/o At present C/o R.D. Tyagi Near E.S.I Hospital Shardanagar Saharanpur, District Saharanpur Permanent Address Village Buggawala P.S.Buggawala, District Hardwar …........…Respondent Shri Manish Arora, Advocate, present for the appellant Coram: Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Hon'ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 2 Oral: Hon'ble Prafulla C.Pant, J. This is Delay Condonation Application No. 6193 of 2011, for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the order dated 23.02.2011, passed by Judge Family Court, Hardwar, in Suit No. 58 of 2008, whereby said court has directed the appellant to pay maintenance to his wife under section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. (2) There is delay of 86 days which is sufficiently explained in the affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant. Delay Condonation Application No. 6193 of 2011 is allowed. Delay is condoned. (3) Also, heard on admission and perused the impugned order dated 23.02.2011, passed by Judge Family Court, Hardwar, in Suit No. 58 of 2008, whereby said court has directed the appellant (husband) to pay maintenance of ` 5,000/- towards the litigation expenses to his wife ` 300 on each date she appears in the court, and ` 1,500/- for maintenance to her and the son living with her. (4) Learned counsel for the appellant pleaded that appellant is a farmer. It is further contended that the impugned order is too harsh. However, on going 3 through the impugned order and other papers on record, we find that amount of ` 1,500/- per month for the maintenance of respondent (wife) and her son (who is living with her), and the amount of the litigation charges to the tune of ` 5,000/- in the facts of the circumstances is just and reasonable, as such it requires no interference. However, amount of `3,00/- per date on each date to the respondent who lives in the same District, appears to be on the higher side. (5) In the above circumstances, this appeal is summarily disposed of affirming the impugned order passed by the trial court so far as it relates to litigation expenses and monthly amount of maintenance to be paid to the respondent. However, the died money and traveling expenses on each date is reduced from `300 to ` 150 per date on which respondent appears in person. (Stay Application No. 6194 of 2011 also stands disposed of ). (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 30.06.2011 Nahid 4