IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9363 of 2009 SMT.RINKU JHA Versus VIVEK KUMAR & ANR ----------- For the petitioner: M/s. Kumar Rajeev and Binay Kumar Singh. For respondent no.1: Mr. Sukumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate & Abinash Kumar. For the State: Mr. S P Verma, AC to GA 5. --- 04. 06.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.1. Petitioner is the wife who has challenged the order dated 20.1.2009 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Darbhanga in Matrimonial Case no. 39 of 2008. By virtue of this order the court has directed payment of lump sum as cost of litigation and travelling allowances. Grant of maintenance has not been allowed at this stage and that is the reason why the petitioner is before this Court. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is entitled to maintenance because she has no other source of income. Learned Senior Counsel representing respondent No.1 submits that it is only an interim payment and the court has not rejected the claim of the petitioner and only directed that she should appear and place her matter in the suit the trial of which is held back due to non-cooperation of the petitioner. The facts being what they are, no further direction is required to be issued for payment of maintenance at this stage. But if the petitioner appears before the court and cooperates in the trial of the suit, she will have liberty to make such prayer or such demand which - 2 - is permissible under the law in this regard. The writ application is dismissed with above liberty. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)