IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 740 of 2002(M/S) Shailesh Nanda … Petitioner Vs Smt. Seema Nanda & another … Respondents Sri Sharad Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent No. 2 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. By way of this writ petition the petitioner, who is the husband of respondent No. 1 has challenged the order dated 31.07.2002 passed by Principal Judge, Family court, Dehradun in Case No. 105 of 2002, Smt. Seema Nanda Vs Shailesh Nanda. 2. Heard Sri Sharad Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent No. 1 who is the wife of the petitioner is not entitled to get any amount as litigation expenses. He has further submitted that whatever, the amount has been awarded as litigation expense by the Principal Judge, Family Court is too excessive and the Principal Judge, Family Court while passing the impugned order has not given the reasons as to how and in what manner the amount of Rs. 24,000/- is awarded as the litigation expenses. 4. After having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that the respondent No. 1 is already receiving an amount of Rs.6,044/- per month, as maintenance allowance from the salary of her husband i.e. petitioner under the provision of the Arms Act and the reasoning recorded by the Principal Judge, Family Court that since the lady has not filed any case for grant of maintenance allowance, therefore, she should be awarded the cost of litigation does not appear to be convincing. The Principal Judge, Family Court while awarding the litigation expenses in favour of the lady should have considered this aspect as to whether the amount to be awarded as the litigation expenses by the court below is just and proper or not. 5. I have also been informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the wife although put in appearance before the court below but she has been taking unnecessary adjournments in order to linger on the case and is causing unnecessary harassment to the petitioner. 6. Keeping in view the over all circumstances of the case, I direct that the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- instead of Rs. 24,000/- as has been awarded by the Principal Judge, Family court as the litigation expenses to the respondent No. 1 within a period of six weeks. 7. I further direct the Principal Judge, Family Court to decide the matter which is pending before it, expeditiously and without causing any unreasonable delay. It is further made clear that the Principal Judge, Family Court shall not grant the adjournment to either party on any unreasonable ground. 8. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of finally. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 11.06.2008 ASWAL